ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Financial Performance

Nigel Adams: What assessment he has made of the financial performance of the NHS in 2010-11; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Lansley: Financial performance in the NHS in the last year has been strong. As at quarter three of financial year 2010-11, the strategic health authorities and primary care trusts were forecasting an overall surplus of £1,269 million, and the NHS trust sector was forecasting an overall surplus of £132 million. I expect the 2010-11 final year-end surplus to be no less than this forecast, representing about 1% of the budget, broadly in line with plans.

Nigel Adams: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. My constituents will be pleased that the NHS performed on a sound financial basis nationally. What increases will the NHS receive in my local area of north Yorkshire in 2011-12, and can my right hon. Friend confirm that those increases are the result of the Government’s decision to protect the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: In 2011-12, NorthYorkshire and York primary care trust will receive £1,207.3 million. That represents a cash increase over last year of £34.7 million, or 3%. That exactly represents our coalition Government’s commitment to protect the NHS and to increase its budget in real terms, and it is in stark contrast to what we were told we should do by the Labour party and what the Labour Government in Wales have done, which is to impose a 5% real cut in NHS spending in Wales.

David Miliband: Can the Secretary of State confirm my figures that over £20 million has been spent in the north-east of England sacking PCT staff, that that money has come from funds previously earmarked for hospitals, and that there will be at least as many commissioning groups under his arrangements as there are currently PCTs employing managers in those roles? Does not that show that his plans are lunacy not reform, and that they should be taken away and put in the dustbin, not given a simple pause?

Andrew Lansley: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that in contrast to the last Labour Government it is our intention to increase the front-line staffing of the NHS relative to the staffing of the administration in the NHS. That is why, since the general election, there are 3,800 fewer managers in the NHS and 2,500 more doctors.

Stephen Dorrell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is a key priority of the Government to reverse a decade of declining productivity in the health service in order to ensure that the resources that are committed by the Government deliver improved access and improved quality of patient care?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I can. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Over the last year in hospitals in particular we saw what was approaching a 15% reduction
	in productivity. That is why we are proceeding with ensuring that across the NHS we recognise not only that there are increasing demands on the NHS, which is why we are increasing the NHS budget by £ll.5 billion over four years, but that that money must be used increasingly effectively to deliver efficiency savings in excess of 4% each year so that we can improve the quality of services for patients.

John Healey: The Secretary of State spoke in glowing terms of the last year, but the last year has been a catalogue of confusion, incompetence and broken promises. So will he now accept that the Government’s massive mishandled NHS reorganisation is piling extra pressure on NHS services, with nearly £2 billion promised for patient care being wasted on the internal changes? Will he admit that it is patients who will suffer as front-line NHS staff lose their jobs, treatments are cut back and waiting times start to rise again under the Tories?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman asked about performance last year. I told him what the financial performance was. Let me also make it clear that, for example, for hospital in-patients, referral to treatment waiting time has gone down from 8.4 weeks in May 2010 to 7.9 weeks in the latest figures in March, and for out-patients the figure has gone down from 4.3 weeks in May 2010 to 3.7 weeks in the latest figures, so waiting times have improved. We have established the cancer drugs fund, with more than 2,500 patients benefiting from that. We have published and driven down the number of breaches of the single sex accommodation rules: a 77% reduction in those breaches, which Labour never achieved. In the last year we have reduced the number of MRSA infections in hospitals by 22% and C. difficile infections by 15%. I applaud the NHS—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have got the thrust of it and are most grateful.

John Healey: The Secretary of State mentioned a lot of things, but I notice that he did not mention the Prime Minister’s five new guarantees. [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State shakes his head as if they do not matter, but perhaps he was not consulted on them. People have seen the Prime Minister make and then break promises on the NHS before, but this time he is breaking his pledges as he is making them. The King’s Fund says that waiting times are going up and the Nuffield Trust says that health funding is being cut in real terms. Privatisation, the break-up of integrated care and the removal of national standards at the heart of the health service are exactly what his health Bill is designed to do. Is that not why MORI shows public concern about the NHS rising rapidly and why people are right to conclude that they cannot trust the Tories on the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will not let waiting times rise and that we will improve performance in the NHS right across the board, which was what I was illustrating. I remind the right hon. Gentleman again that waiting times in hospitals are down from 8.4 weeks to 7.9 weeks for in-patients and from 4.3 weeks to 3.7 weeks for out-patients. That is what we are committed to. Chris Ham of the Kings Fund was on the “Today”programme this morning and said on waiting times, “There hasn’t
	been a great deal of change since the election.” What has changed since the election is that we are improving performance, driving down the number of breaches of the single-sex rules, increasing access to dentistry, cutting the number of managers and increasing the number of doctors. Those are the things we are doing in the NHS, and it is to the benefit of patients that we do.

Integrated Cancer Services

John Baron: What steps he is taking to enable GP consortia to commission integrated cancer services.

Paul Burstow: “Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer” set out our plans to support GP consortia to commission high-quality cancer services that deliver improved outcomes. The strategy confirmed the importance of cancer networks and we have recently confirmed that the NHS commissioning board will continue to support strengthened cancer networks.

John Baron: I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for extending the guaranteed funding for cancer networks to 2013 and their commitment to support them thereafter, because the cancer networks’ expertise will be much valued by consortia. How will the authorisation process for GP consortia ensure effective commissioning of those cancer services that span consortia boundaries, such as radiotherapy?

Paul Burstow: What we are doing at the moment with the pause is making sure that we revise the proposals in ways that ensure that we deliver the outcomes set out in the White Paper last year. One of the things we said in the White Paper, and which the Bill currently provides for, is that GP commissioning consortia can collaborate where they need to commission for larger populations.

Diane Abbott: On GP commissioning consortia, one of the concerns that the Minister will have heard during his pause is the public’s concern about the possible role of the private sector in GP commissioning. Although we all agree that the private sector has always had, and will always have, a role in the NHS, does the Southern Cross Healthcare disaster not show the dangers of leaving health and social care to the short-term decisions of private equity bosses?

Paul Burstow: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will want to focus on GP commissioning of integrated cancer services.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for that advice, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady’s remark was one that she might have made from the Back Benches when the Labour party was in power, but which it never listened to when in government. On GP commissioning consortia, we believe that it is important that consortia have access to the right expertise to be able to commission effectively both clinicians from other parts of the health economy and other expertise from the voluntary sector. That should be possible and we think that it is how we can improve commissioning in the NHS.

David Tredinnick: Will commissioners be able to approach specialist integrated cancer services, such as the Penny Brohn cancer clinic in Bristol, and will that clinic and others be represented on health and wellbeing boards in future?

Paul Burstow: The membership of health and wellbeing boards will be a matter for the local authorities that will set them up. The Bill provides de minimis provisions for involving local councillors, representatives from commissioning consortia, public health directors, social services and children’s services, but I am sure that many of the pilots that are currently going on across the country are looking at innovative ways of involving others as well.

Southern Cross Healthcare

Alex Cunningham: What steps he is considering in relation to Southern Cross Healthcare; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Smith: What steps he is considering in relation to Southern Cross Healthcare; and if he will make a statement.

Sheila Gilmore: What steps he is considering in relation to Southern Cross Healthcare; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Burstow: Southern Cross has plans in place to restructure its business and is keeping the Government updated on progress. We will continue to keep in close touch with the situation and work with local authorities, the Care Quality Commission and others to ensure that there is an effective response which delivers to everyone the protection that we should want for all in those residential homes.

Alex Cunningham: I am grateful for that answer, but Southern Cross will not win any medals for managing its self-made crisis or for the anxiety caused to thousands of residents and their families, including 200 in five homes in my constituency. If organisations such as Southern Cross fail to get the investment that they need and end up going bust, will the Government guarantee those older people that decisive Government action will be taken to safeguard them in the places that they now call home?

Paul Burstow: Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman and to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have legitimate concerns about the welfare of residents in those homes: that is the Government’s paramount concern, and we will ensure that every step necessary is taken to safeguard those interests. The responsibility for providing care rests with local authorities, and that is why we as a Government have been working so closely with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to ensure that such arrangements are in place in the event of any need. The key thing at the moment, however, is to ensure that the company continues to restructure and continues to be in business.

Nick Smith: Uncertainty about Southern Cross is troubling for the 74 residents of the two homes in Blaenau Gwent, and I commend my local authority on contacting their relatives to explain that it is monitoring the situation. If Southern Cross cuts its running costs, what measures will the Government put in place to ensure that the standards of care are closely monitored? Will the Government investigate the financial management of the company, described by my constituent Mr Hooper, whose mam is a Southern Cross resident, as
	“greedy chancers who gamble with crazy business plans”?

Paul Burstow: The Government continue to maintain very close contact with the devolved Administrations on those issues to ensure that we co-ordinate in that way, and the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to make sure that the standards of care provided in all those homes are maintained. That is a role that the CQC has been discharging and will continue to discharge.

Sheila Gilmore: Housing associations have regulatory control over financial management and viability in order to protect tenants’ homes. Will the Minister consider putting in place a similar regime to protect the homes of care home residents?

Paul Burstow: Within the current legal framework established in the Health and Social Care Act 2008, there are requirements on financial viability, but we will undoubtedly want to look at those issues when we come to publish a White Paper on social care reform later this year.

John Pugh: Does the Minister agree that to avoid similar issues we need to build consensus throughout the House on the future of social care—and its financial governance?

Paul Burstow: I could simply say yes to my hon. Friend, but I agree entirely, and that is why last year we acted quickly to establish an independent commission, led by Andrew Dilnot, to undertake a review of how we fund social care. His report will be coming forward shortly, and I would certainly welcome all necessary discussions to ensure that we deliver effective reform.

Margot James: We have six homes in Dudley borough managed and owned by Southern Cross, and I am pleased to hear the Minister’s assurance that he will work with local authorities to ensure that no resident is left in need. Questions must be asked, however, about the conduct of the former directors of Southern Cross, and about how they acted in terms of the duty of care to their company and to residents. Will my hon. Friend consider investigating the conduct of those former directors should the company’s situation worsen?

Paul Burstow: Those matters would more appropriately be dealt with by colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but those points are fairly made by my hon. Friend. As a Government, we continue to maintain close dialogue with the company, the landlords and all other interested parties to make clear to them their responsibilities to secure the ongoing care of the individuals in those homes.

David Ward: I welcome the Minister’s response to the issue, which I acknowledge is the responsibility of local authorities, but they face many other difficulties, not only with nursing care but with residential care and the increased demand for it. What effective support will there be, other than additional words of support?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Over many months, we have been in discussions with colleagues at the Local Government Association, and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services recently produced new guidance on maintaining continuity and quality of care for individuals in homes that may be in difficulties. That is the appropriate way for us to proceed. We continue to work with them to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are in place. However, I remain focused, as all Members in this House should be, on ensuring that the company has the best possible opportunity to get itself on a stable footing so that it can continue to provide the care that people want.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Minister will be aware that 25 care homes in Northern Ireland operate under the Southern Cross banner. What is he going to do to ensure that there is a consistent approach across the entirety of the United Kingdom? Will he have discussions with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland and other concerned parties to ensure that patients and residents in those homes are treated equitably and fairly?

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that relates to the earlier question where I indicated that we are in constant contact with the devolved Administrations and will continue to have that dialogue—if necessary, at ministerial level.

Emily Thornberry: Although we welcome the Government’s statement today that whatever the outcome of the restructuring of Southern Cross, they will not allow anyone to find themselves homeless, may I cast the Minister’s mind back to a week ago? Where was he? Why was he not visiting Southern Cross homes and speaking to residents, families and carers, as I was? Does he not now regret hiding in his bunker and allowing No. 10 to attempt to answer the questions that were put to the Government on behalf of these very vulnerable people?

Paul Burstow: I was about to say that I was grateful to the hon. Lady for the question, but clearly I am not. I have been following this as a Minister throughout, and I continue to follow it closely and to give the necessary instructions to officials to secure the future and the fate of the residents in these care homes. We have to be cautious and careful about the language we use on this particular endeavour. That is what I am doing, and I would urge the hon. Lady to do the same.

Emily Thornberry: The Minister can be assured that I am careful in the language that I use, and the words that I wish to use are these: does he agree that it is simply wrong that financiers and some of Southern Cross’s previous directors have creamed off millions of pounds while putting at risk the care of 31,000 elderly people who seem to have been used merely as commodities?
	Now that this has come to light, will the Government look urgently at whether regulation should be extended to ensure the financial stability of organisations that we entrust with the care of our most vulnerable?

Paul Burstow: That question has already been asked, and I have already indicated the approach that we intend to take with regard to the White Paper. I also point out that the establishment of the business model that Southern Cross operates of separating out provision from the ownership of the homes took place not under this Government’s watch but under her Government’s watch.

Patient Outcomes

Chris Heaton-Harris: What assessment he has made of trends in outcomes for NHS patients since May 2010.

Andrew Lansley: I am determined to focus on the results that matter most to patients. For example, in the year ending March 2011, the number of MRSA bloodstream infections decreased by 22% and C. difficile infections decreased by 15% on the year before. These are key outcomes in the drive to protect patients from avoidable harm. We also want to see continuous improvements in patients’ experience of their care. For example, between December last year and April this year, we took action on breaches of the single sex accommodation rules, and the number of breaches reduced by 77%. The NHS outcomes framework will drive up quality across services as well as providing evidence of the overall progress of the NHS.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He has rightly identified patient experience as a key outcome that has improved over the past year. Given that tens of millions of patients every year experience accident and emergency as their first point of contact with the NHS, what steps has he taken to improve the quality of care that patients receive in A and E wards?

Andrew Lansley: In the past, the only measure of activity and performance in A and E departments was whether patients had been discharged from the department within four hours. That meant, for example, that the emergency department at Stafford hospital was able to tick the box marked “Four-hour target met” in circumstances where patients were discharged completely inappropriately and patients suffered and died. We have now published, for the first time, quality indicators agreed with clinical professionals across emergency services that indicate what A and E quality should look like regarding not only time waited but the time before patients are seen by a qualified professional, re-attendance rates for the same problems, and mortality and related outcomes.

Ben Bradshaw: The Secretary of State is using a highly selective reading of waiting times. Will he confirm that breaches of the four hour target for A and E waits and the 18 week target for operations have increased massively in the past year? If they have not, why did the Prime Minister today confirm his support for those Labour targets?

Andrew Lansley: The Prime Minister made it clear that we will focus on outcomes for patients, not just on individual targets. In 2010-11, the financial year that has just ended, only 2.6% of people who attended at A and E waited for more than four hours, despite an additional 870,000 people attending A and E departments.

Speech Therapy Services

Gary Streeter: What plans he has for access to NHS speech therapy services for children.

Anne Milton: As my hon. Friend knows, speech and language therapy services are critical for children and young people who need help to develop their speech, language and communication skills, and who have conditions such as swallowing difficulties. We have published a Green Paper on special educational needs and disability, which includes proposals to develop a new co-ordinated assessment for education, health and care plans by 2014 and for the option of a personal budget for all families with such plans. That will offer families more choice and ensure that children get the support that they need.

Gary Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that when a child needs to access speech therapy, often it is to unlock vital early years education and is therefore time critical? The west country has known waiting times of three, six or even nine months. Will she assure me that the coalition Government can do better than that?

Anne Milton: We most certainly can do better than that. I agree with my hon. Friend that such problems are often a barrier, and that therapy can unlock so much more. I refer him to service redesigns that have happened, such as at the Cambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust, which redesigned its clinical pathways with the result that the number of children waiting longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment fell from 409 in May 2010 to eight at the end of January 2011. That is a fantastic improvement in the service. This is not all about money, but about the way in which services are designed.

Kevin Barron: The Minister will know that more than 60% of inmates in young offender institutions have speech and communication problems. Can we ensure that the Green Paper addresses this matter not just within the national health service, but in education and wider, so that we can begin to tackle this problem, which has lain dormant in this country for decades?

Anne Milton: The right hon. Gentleman is right that we are not talking just about children. A number of people have languished and failed to achieve their potential, particularly their educational potential, for the lack of speech and language therapies. I take this opportunity to commend the work of Jean Gross, the communication champion, in raising and highlighting these issues.

NHS Blood and Transplant

Annette Brooke: What recent representations he has received on the future of NHS Blood and Transplant; and if he will make a statement.

Anne Milton: Since February 2011, we have received about 60 representations on the future of NHS Blood and Transplant, including from MPs, Unison and the public. Representations continue to come in. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady if she would like. I should make it clear that the current review is not considering the sale of any part of NHSBT.

Annette Brooke: I wonder whether the Minister can give further assurances to address the great concern that voluntary donations of blood and organs might be put at risk if it is perceived that profits are being made in any part of the operation.

Anne Milton: My hon. Friend is right. The altruistic donor system is one of the rocks on which the NHS is built, and we will do nothing to jeopardise public confidence in it. I am alarmed at some of the scare stories that have been circulating. They serve nobody any good, least of all those who need the necessary donations that are made.

Cancer Drugs Fund

Andrew Stephenson: What recent representations he has received on the operation of the cancer drugs fund.

Stephen Hammond: What recent assessment he has made of the operation of the cancer drugs fund; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Lansley: I have received representations from hon. Members, noble Lords and members of the public on how the fund has operated. A number have welcomed the additional support that we are giving to cancer patients in need. More than 2,500 patients have already benefited from the additional funding provided up to the start of April 2011, and the further £600 million that we have committed for next three years will improve the lives of thousands more cancer sufferers.

Andrew Stephenson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the cancer drugs fund is helping cancer specialists tailor treatment regimes to patients in areas including my constituency, and helping to provide a more personal and responsive cancer service?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. Indeed, I cannot do better than to quote Mike Hobday, head of policy at Macmillan Cancer Support, who said:
	“The £200 million Cancer Drugs Fund will make sure every cancer patient has a better chance to get the drugs their doctor prescribes for them. This is particularly important for those with a rarer cancer, who have historically lost out on getting drugs on the NHS.”

Stephen Hammond: I am sure the whole House will welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement today that 2,500 people have already benefited from the interim cancer drugs fund. Can he give the House some indication of whether people with the more difficult types of cancer will benefit from it?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the run-up to the election and since, the Rarer Cancers Forum has mentioned the number of applications to the exceptional cases panels of primary care trusts that have been turned down, and pointed out how often patients in this country have not got access to new cancer medicines that are regularly available to patients in other European countries. That was the basis on which we estimated the level of demand for the cancer drugs fund, and it has actually turned out to be a very good predictor of demand. Patients are now receiving second-line or new medicines for a range of cancers, including prostate and bowel cancer. People with common cancers as well as rarer ones are getting access to new medicines that are increasing their quality of life or life expectancy.

Liz Kendall: Today the Prime Minister pledged to increase NHS funding, protect universal coverage and keep waiting times low, but his promises are already being broken on cancer care. Three quarters of the cancer drugs fund is not additional money, as the Secretary of State claims, but money taken from other patients, and half as many new cancer drugs are available in some parts of the country as in others. Whatever he claims, can he now confirm that the number of patients waiting more than six weeks for their diagnostic test, including for cancer, has doubled since this time last year?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady seems to have forgotten that we were very clear at the time of the election that we would establish the cancer drugs fund not least on the basis that under this Government, the NHS would not have to pay the additional employer’s national insurance contributions that it otherwise would. The money available for the NHS is being used for the benefit of patients, and it represents additional resources.
	I might also remind the hon. Lady that before the election, her party was not committed to protecting the NHS budget. The Leader of the Opposition was completely wrong today when he said that Labour was going to protect NHS spending, as we did. That is not true. Actually, it was committed to only 95% of NHS funding, which was that for the PCTs. It was going to cut the rest, and centrally funded budgets such as the cancer drugs fund are precisely what would have disappeared.
	The hon. Lady asked about diagnostic tests. The figures show that a year ago, the average waiting time was 1.7 weeks, whereas the latest figure is 1.8 weeks.

Foundation Trusts

Pat Glass: What recent assessment he has made of the ability of all NHS hospital trusts to become foundation trusts by 2014.

Simon Burns: The Department is currently in the process of working with strategic health authorities to establish timetables for every NHS trust to achieve foundation trust status by April 2014, and to agree the actions that are required to achieve that. That work is ongoing, and once plans are finalised, they will be published locally.

Pat Glass: The Minister will have to make some difficult decisions very soon about specialist children’s heart provision. In my part of the world, the choice will be between the NHS trusts in Newcastle and Leeds. Can he confirm that those decisions will be based on clinical outcomes, not political expediency?

Simon Burns: I can give the hon. Lady a categorical assurance that they will be based on clinical outcomes, not political considerations. I hope she will accept that it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further at this point in the proceedings, because we are in the middle of a consultation process at arm’s length from Ministers.

Stewart Jackson: Over the past 12 months, the Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals Foundation Trust has spent thousands of pounds of public money in connection with a vacant site—the former Peterborough district hospital site— and has yet to take it to market, despite having a £38 million deficit this year. Will my right hon. Friend ask Monitor to ensure that trusts make use of, and dispose of, valuable public assets in a timely way, in the best interests of both the taxpayer and the local health economy?

Simon Burns: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend by giving him a straightforward yes in answer to that question.

Paul Goggins: Will the Minister look urgently at what is happening in Trafford? The Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust has decided not to seek foundation status and is looking to transfer its acute services to another local provider. One difficulty with that is the projected funding shortfall of £55 million. Will he take a close interest in that, and seek to resolve the current uncertainty?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I am aware of that situation and of the problems at that hospital. My understanding is that the strategic health authority is working hard with the trust to seek a solution. That work will continue until a viable solution is found.

GP Pathfinder Consortia

Nick de Bois: What recent assessment he has made of progress by GP pathfinder consortia in delivering improvements in NHS services.

Andrew Lansley: We have taken time to pause, to listen and to reflect on our reforms; none the less I am pleased to report that there remain 220 pathfinder consortia, covering nearly 90% of England. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, the Enfield consortium group is established and is focusing on quality and productivity improvements to local health care services. I have been greatly encouraged by the initiative that clinicians have taken to improve patient services, and examples are available at the pathfinder learning network, a forum through which we are supporting their development.

Nick de Bois: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows my view on the need to ensure that there is a comprehensive network of commissioning consortia across the whole country by April 2013. Does he share my view that that essential requirement will not only improve patient choice but ensure that we can pass a further £5 billion in savings back into front-line services?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. What has been interesting in the listening exercise is the clear expression—on the part of front-line clinicians, general practitioners, doctors, nurses and other health professionals—of a desire to take greater responsibility for commissioning. They are only too aware of a decade of decline in productivity in the NHS, in which administration costs and staffing ballooned while front-line staffing did not increase to anything like the same extent. They want to deliver better clinical services for their patients, and to have the responsibility to do so. We are determined to give that to them.

Breast Screening Programme

Steve Brine: Whether his Department has considered the merits of introducing a supplemental ultrasound breast screening examination as part of the NHS breast screening programme.

Paul Burstow: The answer is no. Mammography is the only screening modality that has been proven to reduce mortality from breast cancer, and is supported and promoted by the World Health Organisation’s international agency for research on cancer. Ultrasound screening may be used within the breast screening programme as part of the triple assessment process.

Steve Brine: The Minister will be aware that forms of cancer such as lobular breast cancer are far more difficult to detect with a mammogram than other types of breast cancer. Will he perhaps clarify exactly what guidance his Department issues to primary care trusts on the use of ultrasound screening as part of the triple assessment process? Sadly, in the case of my constituent Lindsay Jackson, mammography failed to detect that form of lobular breast cancer.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Department does not issue guidance, but the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence does. Its guidance on improving outcomes in breast cancer states that mammography and ultrasound imaging should be available in breast clinics as part of the triple assessment of women with suspected breast cancer. In addition, the guidance states that ultrasound is useful in predicting tumour size and in planning surgery, and that it can complement mammography in differentiating malignant and benign disease. That guidance is the key tool used in making such decisions.

Foundation Trusts

Gavin Barwell: What recent progress he has made in establishing foundation trusts in London.

Andrew Lansley: The Department is currently in the process of working with NHS London to establish timetables for each NHS trust and agree the actions required to achieve foundation trust status by April 2014. This work is ongoing; once it is finalised, plans will be published locally.

Gavin Barwell: In 2010-11 Croydon Health Services NHS Trust delivered an operating surplus of £4.5 million. May I commend its FT application to my right hon. Friend in the hope that in future years, that money can be reinvested in local health services in my borough?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I understand and entirely sympathise with my hon. Friend’s desire to see Croydon Health Services NHS Trust achieve foundation trust status. He will know that the trust was recently the subject of a responsive review visit by the Care Quality Commission, which revealed areas in which further assurance will be needed ahead of its foundation trust application going forward. He will appreciate, as I do, that in the past foundation trust status did not depend sufficiently on the achievement of high-quality services, rather than merely viable services. We intend that in future, foundation trust status will depend on both.

Mental Health Services

Nicky Morgan: What steps he is taking to improve mental health services.

Paul Burstow: Mental health is a cross-government priority. Earlier this year we published our mental health outcomes strategy document “No health without mental health”, to drive up standards in services and improve the nation’s mental health. But this cannot just be a problem for the Government, which is why we are working in partnership with the voluntary sector and the wider community.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am pleased to hear about the emphasis on mental health. During the recess, I met members of the Charnwood health forum, including Leicestershire’s public health lead for mental health matters. He is concerned that there will be no place for him to advise or work with GP commissioning consortia. Can my hon. Friend reassure him that he will be able to advise GPs?

Paul Burstow: Yes, I believe that I can. Directors of public health will be the local leaders for public health in their communities. For example, local authorities and GP commissioning consortia will be required to undertake joint strategic needs assessments and produce joint health and well-being strategies for their areas, through health and well-being boards. The directors of public health will be directly engaged in that process and will therefore be able to influence the commissioning not only of health care services but of social care. They will be directly involved in the commissioning of public health locally.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister will be aware of the proposal to close the Edale unit in central Manchester and open a different facility in north Manchester. Can he give the House, and the country, a guarantee that if that were to take place,
	financial consideration would be given to the total NHS economy and not simply to the mental health trusts, and that there would be clear benefits for mental health patients?

Paul Burstow: The key point that I take from the hon. Gentleman’s question is the importance of ensuring that there are clear benefits for those who rely on mental health services. Obviously, I cannot prejudge any decisions that are being made locally, because they may well come to a Minister for a decision in the future. I will, however, undertake to consider further the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and if necessary to write to him with more detail.

NHS (Competition and Co-operation)

Lilian Greenwood: What assessment he has made of the potential role of (a) competition and (b) co-operation and collaboration in the NHS.

Simon Burns: Co-operation and competition both have important roles to play in improving services for patients. We want to see better integration of services to improve quality and increase choice for patients. Following the listening exercise, we are awaiting the report on the best way forward.

Lilian Greenwood: The Deputy Prime Minister says that he wants Monitor to promote co-operation and collaboration, while the Secretary of State says that competition can lead to a far greater degree of integration. It is good that the Deputy Prime Minister has finally caught up with the views of the public and health professionals—but which of those fundamentally contradictory views will end up in the Bill?

Simon Burns: First, we all want co-operation and competition based on quality. We have had a listening event, and we are awaiting the recommendations of the forum set up under Professor Steve Field. Until we see that report, we cannot comment. I can tell the hon. Lady, however, that we do not want the kind of system of competition in the health service that leads to an independent sector treatment centre in Nottingham being paid 18% more than the NHS for the services provided, and getting £5.6 million for not doing a single operation.

Daniel Poulter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key focus for improving collaboration in the NHS must be to break down the silo working that occurs between adult social services and the NHS? That will be particularly pertinent in improving elderly care services and mental health care services, and in providing a community focus for that care.

Simon Burns: Yes—and it is always refreshing to get a question from someone who has had experience of working in the NHS and actually knows what he is talking about. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; greater integration of services is crucial if we are to break down the barriers and get improved, high-quality care for all patients.

Kate Green: I was interested to hear the Minister’s earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) about the situation in Trafford. Will he confirm that he will encourage a collaborative approach, involving the strategic health authority, the primary care trust, the existing foundation trust and the potential bidding foundation trust, to secure the best possible clinical and financial outcome for patients?

Simon Burns: Yes, I can tell the hon. Lady that it will be up to the SHA, the trust and officials at the Department—[Interruption.] The SHA is the strategic health authority in the north-west. It is for them to work together to produce a tripartite formal agreement—when agreed, it will be published for the local community to see—as the best way forward to seek solutions and to help trusts achieve foundation trust status. It is in their interest and the interest of patients to bring about improved, high-quality patient care.

Mental Health Services

Henry Smith: What steps he is taking to improve mental health services.

Paul Burstow: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan)?

Henry Smith: I am grateful for the Minister’s answer to that earlier question. Will he explain more fully exactly how services for those with eating disorders can be enhanced, particularly in the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust area?

Paul Burstow: Yes, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will update its guidance on eating disorders later this year. The plans already set out in the Health and Social Care Bill mean that eating disorders will be subject to specialised commissioning in future by the NHS Commissioning Board. We believe that, because of the consolidated expertise in matching needs, this will help to drive up standards and enhance quality and consistency across the country. In the hon. Gentleman’s own patch, the assessment service run by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust is certainly an impressive one.

Topical Questions

Karl McCartney: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andrew Lansley: My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities, and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people.

Karl McCartney: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me, and my Lincoln constituents, that whatever the outcome of the Government’s consultation, our NHS still requires
	some measure of reform—and that if a provider is qualified to deliver NHS standards at NHS costs, and if patients, with the support of their doctor, want to be treated there, this Government should do nothing to stand in their way, regardless of any political posturing by our flip-flopping coalition partners? [Hon. Members: “ Ooh!”] And further to—

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but topical questions must not be statements or essays; they must be very brief questions. I think we have got the thrust of his question, and we are grateful to him.

Andrew Lansley: Through the listening exercise and in response to the report of the NHS Future Forum, which we hope to see shortly, we hope to be able further to strengthen the principles of the Bill and its implementation of the White Paper, so that patients can share in decisions about their care and access the services that give them the best quality. That includes, in many instances, patients having access to a choice of providers as well.

Jonathan Reynolds: Doctors, nurses and PCT staff in my area tell me that the Government’s pausing of the health reforms has had no impact whatever on the ground, and that implementation of the Health and Social Care Bill is proceeding just as it was before. Does the Secretary of State believe that that is wrong—and if not, does it not mean that this whole consultation period is an absolute farce?

Andrew Lansley: No, not at all. We were very clear—indeed, I was clear to the House on 4 April when I announced the pause to listen, to reflect on and improve the Bill—that it was specifically related to achieving in the legislation the necessary support for the many changes happening across the NHS. It cannot be right, however, that people across the NHS who are engaging in delivering improved care, redesigning clinical pathways—or designing clinical services to deliver the best outcomes for patients—should be told to stop making those positive changes. They are engaging with those positive changes and we are not preventing them from doing so.

Duncan Hames: I am wearing neither sandals nor flip-flops, Mr Speaker. Given that local GPs typically charge £500 a day, what action is the Minister taking to ensure that GP consortium board members do not cost the NHS as much as £25,000 each a year for just one day’s work a week?

Andrew Lansley: Among the intentions that we have made clear from the outset is our intention to reduce the running costs of management in the NHS. We propose to cut administration costs by a third in real terms, including the running costs of the commissioning consortia when they are established. There will be a constantly tight envelope for running costs, which means that whoever is working for a commissioning consortium, it must deliver value for money.

Hazel Blears: For the 200,000 people in the country with dementia who are currently in residential care, the recent horrific
	events at Winterbourne View and the financial problems at Southern Cross have caused huge anxiety. The Minister is now proposing to make local authority safeguarding boards mandatory, at a time of huge cuts in social care budgets. What extra resources will he make available to ensure that the system works and protects the most vulnerable people in our country?

Paul Burstow: I think that Members throughout the House share the right hon. Lady’s concern about the events that were revealed in more detail last week. We will deal with an urgent question on one of the other matters later this afternoon. She also asked about funding for social care. In last year’s spending review we not only secured additional resources enabling us to put safeguarding boards on a statutory basis, but ensured that by 2014 an additional £2 billion would go into social services. Much of that will come via the NHS to ensure much closer working between health and social care services, which is an essential prerequisite for the delivery of better outcomes for people with dementia.

Harriett Baldwin: One of my constituents, a vulnerable young adult with complex needs, was recently sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983, taken from the family home, and placed in Winterbourne View. The mother was very concerned about her child’s care there, and contacted me. However, I was told by adult social services that I could not know the details of the case because of data protection. When reviewing the regulations involving vulnerable adults, will the Minister ensure that questions from Members of Parliament about such cases can be answered, so that they can stand up for even their most vulnerable constituents without their express written permission?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that issue. I think that Members in all parts of the House experience the same frustration from time to time when they feel that they are unable to discharge their responsibilities on behalf of constituents and obtain the information that they think they need in order to do that job. I will certainly undertake to examine the issue again. Patient confidentiality is complex and we must respect the confidentiality of individual patients, but we should not let that get in the way of ensuring that good-quality care is delivered.

John Spellar: When I asked the Minister about Southern Cross on 2 December, he replied:
	“The responsibility for providing or arranging publicly supported residential accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 rests with councils with adult social services (CASSRs), not the Department.
	Any discussions regarding continuing provision for residents of care homes should take place between care providers and CASSRs.” —[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 1014W.]
	Does the Minister now regret that complacent and wholly inadequate reply, which lost vital months in which the crisis could have been dealt with?

Paul Burstow: No, because it was an accurate statement of the legal position, which is what the question required.
	Since these issues became a cause for concern many months ago, the Department of Health has been very much engaged with them at both official and ministerial level. We have also ensured that all parties—the local authorities, the Care Quality Commission and others—are clear about their responsibilities. I should have thought that that was what the hon. Gentleman would expect us to do, and it is what we have done. We are ready for any eventuality.

Gavin Barwell: Croydon University hospital recently took on responsibility for community care, which will allow much better integration of acute and community services. What scope does my right hon. Friend think exists for wider application of that model in our NHS?

Andrew Lansley: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear today, we continue to believe that we can achieve more integrated services for patients, and we are determined to do so. That must be at the heart of the way in which reform and modernisation of the NHS deliver improving outcomes for patients. For patients, the results of care, and indeed their experience of it, will be greatly enhanced if it is designed and integrated to meet their needs. We know that that is effective, we know that it works for patients, and we are determined to make it happen. My hon. Friend has given just one example, and an important one, of the way in which hospital and community services can be integrated.

Mary Glindon: The Prime Minister has stated this afternoon that competition will be an integral part of patient choice. How will the Secretary of State ensure that all patients are able to make a fully informed choice of treatment when market forces fully exist?

Andrew Lansley: I do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise. We do not intend that there should be an unrestricted market—or a free market, as she described it—in the NHS. It is a regulated, social market with powerful regulations governing how the participants in the provision of care meet their responsibilities. We are very clear that competition is a means to an end. It is not an end in itself; it is there to support the integration and delivery of services in the best interests of patients, but it does include giving patients choice. The hon. Lady highlights an important point. In our consultation earlier this year on the information revolution in the NHS, we set out how we felt we could empower patients, including those for whom in the past the NHS has provided a rather impenetrable route to getting the best treatment. I hope that when we respond to that consultation, we will demonstrate how we will make that better for all patients.

Nigel Mills: Does the Minister agree with my constituent Susan Garrity that licensed treatments for multiple sclerosis such as Sativex should be accessible to all people, wherever they live?

Paul Burstow: Certainly I agree that MS patients should have access to clinically effective and cost-effective treatments. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has not issued any guidance on the use of Sativex, and it is for primary care trusts to make funding
	decisions based on the available evidence and the individual patients’ circumstances. Following consultation, NICE expects to make a decision later in the year on whether to update its clinical guidance on MS, and whether to re-evaluate Sativex as part of that.

Anne Begg: There are 12 Southern Cross homes in Aberdeen, nine of which are in my constituency. Just in the past month, one of them, Eastleigh in Peterculter, received a damning report from the Scottish care commission. Is it any wonder that relatives of the people in those homes are concerned that the company that runs them is in financial difficulty, and that the quality of the care provided may suffer as a result? Over the past few years I have also been approached by constituents about self-funders facing unfair cost increases in order that their home might be able to overcome its financial difficulties.

Paul Burstow: As I said earlier, the key concern of this Government—and, I think, of all Members—is to ensure the continuity and quality of the care of residents in Southern Cross homes. That has been the purpose of the Government, and of all the other agencies involved, throughout our engagement with Southern Cross. It is also important that the quality inspectorates in both Scotland and England continue to discharge their role of making sure that the essential standards of safety and quality are being maintained.

Jo Swinson: As the public health White Paper recognises, building positive self-esteem is important for children’s health and well-being. Yesterday, the Bailey review highlighted many parents’ concerns that exposure to very sexualised imagery in our visual culture fuels children’s anxieties about their bodies and reduces self-esteem. How do the Government plan to tackle that as a growing public health issue?

Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She raises an important point about children’s exposure to such imagery from a variety of media sources. It is crucial for the future public health of our country that children get help and support over this and are able to learn the skills they need, and we are determined to get that right. Many of our plans are laid out in the White Paper, and we look forward to seeing them become a reality.

Debbie Abrahams: Can the Secretary of State or the Minister confirm whether they will take up the offer from my Front Bench for bipartisan discussions about the future of adult social care—or will he put political interests before the public interest?

Andrew Lansley: We were very clear that the commission that we established, led by Andrew Dilnot, should look at the reform of long-term social care funding in such a way as to secure maximum understanding, consensus and agreement. Andrew Dilnot has gone about that process in an exemplary manner, and the right thing for us to do now is await his report, which should then form a basis for taking things forward.

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State agree that the competition measures in the Health and Social Care Bill will drive up standards and quality outcomes for the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the evidence—for example, in reports published by the London School of Economics and by Imperial college, London—on this country’s experience of the Labour party’s implementation of choice in elective care and the impact that had on the quality of services. What is clear from that evidence is that where there was an NHS price—a tariff structure—the more competitive areas of the country secured greater improvements in quality.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Secretary of State for writing to me on 12 May about the listening exercise and its cost, although he could not quantify that. Now that the listening exercise is over, can he say how much the cost to the public purse has been?

Andrew Lansley: I will, by all means, write again to the hon. Lady. The cost is not dramatic. Many organisations and people across the NHS have participated, giving freely of their time. Some 8,000 people have participated in the listening exercise events, of which there were more than 250. This has been immensely valuable; its value far exceeds any costs involved.

Pauline Latham: A constituent of mine who suffers from bowel cancer has so far failed to be funded for Avastin on the NHS via the east midlands cancer drugs fund. She has already spent more than £40,000 of her own money. Her oncologist has written before on her behalf to appeal, but as not one of his appeals has been successful, for her or for any of his other patients, he is reluctant to write again to
	appeal for her, although she desperately needs this. What assurance can the Secretary of State give my constituent and her consultant?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is assiduous in representing her constituent, and I will gladly discuss this matter further with her to see what the situation is. I should, however, emphasise that these are decisions being made in the use of the resources to deliver access to new cancer medicines for patients by clinical panels in each region—in each strategic health authority. To that extent, I am not seeking to substitute my judgment for that of the senior clinicians involved. None the less, if it would help my hon. Friend I will also arrange for the national clinical director for cancer services to have a discussion with her constituent’s consultant to examine this case.

David Ruffley: The Labour Government paid independent sector treatment centres 11% more, on average, than they were prepared to pay NHS hospitals. Will the Secretary of State confirm that such a practice forms no part of his health reforms?

Simon Burns: I share my hon. Friend’s concerns, and those of his constituents, about the appalling situation whereby not only were ISTCs paid more than the NHS, but they were paid considerable sums for doing no work at all. It was a sham and a waste of money that could have been spent on front-line services, and I can give him the categorical assurance that it will not happen under this Government, or under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Winterbourne View Care Home

Emily Thornberry: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the Government’s decision not to hold an external independent inquiry into the abuse of vulnerable adults at Winterbourne View.

Paul Burstow: Nobody watching the BBC’s “Panorama” programme last week could have been anything but shocked and appalled by the systematic abuse of residents at Winterbourne View. May I, first, extend my deepest sympathies, and those of all of my colleagues in the Government, to those so horribly mistreated and abused, and to their families and loved ones? For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that we have not ruled out an independent inquiry. A criminal investigation is under way and it is important that we do nothing that could prejudice it.
	In the coming weeks, the Care Quality Commission will inspect the other 22 hospitals run by Castlebeck and the reports will then be publicly available on CQC’s website. The CQC is also starting a three-month inspection of the 150 hospitals that care for people with learning disabilities, and this will include unannounced inspections. Where it identifies inadequate care, the CQC will require the necessary improvements to be made immediately. South Gloucestershire council will also lead an independently chaired serious case review. I have asked the Department of Health to draw together the findings of these various investigations and ensure that they are completed in a thorough and timely manner. I can also report that Mark Goldring, the chief executive of Mencap, will bring an independent voice and a depth and breadth of knowledge of the needs of people with learning disabilities to the task of drawing conclusions and learning lessons. Once in possession of the full facts, and once the police investigation has concluded, we will be in a position to decide what further action is required.
	Since being made aware of the abuse, our priority has been ensuring the safety of patients at Winterbourne View. Fifteen staff have been suspended by Castlebeck and no further patients will be accepted at Winterbourne View. All residents now have a personal advocate and the CQC is working with all the agencies involved to find suitable alternative placements for them, taking into account their specialist needs and the wishes of their families. I issued a full written ministerial statement on these matters at 9.30 this morning.
	It is the right of every individual being cared for by others to be treated with dignity and respect and it is the responsibility of those trusted with their care to provide it: a responsibility that weighs most heavily on those who care for the most vulnerable, including those with learning disabilities. This responsibility rests in four places: with the providers themselves, in this case Castlebeck; with commissioners, both primary care trusts and local authorities; with the regulators, including both the Care Quality Commission and the professional regulators, and the CQC has acknowledged it should have acted sooner and issued an unreserved apology; and, of course, with individuals. No training, guidance or management
	should be needed to tell people that the behaviour experienced by the residents of Winterbourne View was nothing other than obscene and unacceptable.
	In future, our proposed HealthWatch organisations will provide a valuable early warning and will be able to ask the CQC to investigate where concerns exist. We intend to put safeguarding adults boards on a statutory footing, helping local authorities, the NHS and the police to work together to safeguard vulnerable adults. We will do everything in our power to prevent incidents such as those at Winterbourne View from happening again and to ensure that, if they do, the system responds quickly and decisively to protect those at risk.

Emily Thornberry: The Opposition agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It was with great shock and sadness that we saw the terrible events happening, before our eyes, on the television screens. To see the abuse of the most vulnerable by those entrusted with their care was truly shocking and sickening. In the wake of this tragedy, however, vital questions must, in our view, be answered fully and impartially.
	Although internal investigations conducted by the CQC and South Gloucestershire council, both of which are directly connected with this failure, will be of some value, they are nevertheless insufficient. We are asking for an independent inquiry similar in nature to the well-respected “Healthcare for all” inquiry, which Sir Jonathan Michael carried out in May 2007. The Government could include in that inquiry experts to work alongside Mark Goldring, such as Professor Jim Mansell, who has already conducted two reviews for the Department of Health into the structure of homes for those with learning disabilities, because the issues raised in his reports are still to be resolved, as this tragic case suggests.
	We need full and frank answers. Was the CQC’s failure to monitor the treatment of residents due to the lack of resources? Was it due to the shortage of 300 staff, as reported in the Financial Times last week? Does the CQC have adequate powers to act in cases such as that of Winterbourne View and, if so, is it using its powers appropriately? If not, how must the CQC be strengthened to prevent a repeat of this failure and what actions will the Government take to ensure that staff working in social care are better trained and regulated so that events such as those at Winterbourne View can never be repeated?
	Last week, the Minister created confusion with his response. On Tuesday, he seemed to imply that there would be an independent review of the case but by Wednesday he seemed to have changed his mind. Does he now think that internal reviews will be sufficient to answer the questions? I hear what he says about sub judice and the police inquiry, but we are not asking for an inquiry into individual culpability. We are asking for an independent inquiry into the failure of the system, for that inquiry to begin immediately and for there to be no delays. We need assurances that there will be a wide-ranging review, held in public, that will shine a light on the terrible events at Winterbourne View. Only an independent inquiry will do.

Paul Burstow: Of course, we need to ensure a full and thorough inquiry into all these matters, which is being undertaken in the serious case review, which will be
	chaired independently, and in the work of the CQC. That will go on as the Department brings together all the different reviews and that is why we are very pleased that Mark Goldring will take part in the process.
	The hon. Lady suggests that there was confusion last week, but the confusion was only that which she sought to spread. We were very clear from the outset that we wanted to examine all the results from all the different inquiries, and that is what we are doing. We are not ruling out any further inquiries, but we want to ensure that the processes that are in hand are concluded and that we make judgments with the full facts available.

Stephen Dorrell: May I welcome my hon. Friend’s announcements to the House this afternoon? Does he agree that although there has quite properly been a lot of focus on the CQC—Dame Jo Williams accepts that there have been quite clear failures in its supervision of the home—there are also some difficult questions to be answered, particularly by the commissioners of the care? What were they doing paying for care that clearly was not to the required standard? Equally importantly, there are some important questions for the professional regulatory bodies to answer. Did no doctor ever go into the home? If they did, what conclusions did they draw? Where were the nursing regulators in this case?

Paul Burstow: My right hon. Friend poses a number of questions that are at the heart of the various current inquiries. He is right to say that to focus solely on the CQC is to miss the point, as the primary responsibility rests with the provider organisation to recruit, train and supervise the right staff in the first place. He is also absolutely right to ask about the role of the commissioners and the professional regulators. Those are the issues that we are looking at and will examine, and I will come back to the House with answers in due course.

Michael Meacher: As the CQC has been forced, by Government cuts, to reduce its inspections by no less than 70%, how are the Government going to prevent similar abuses from occurring elsewhere and going uninspected and undiscovered unless someone happens to blow the whistle or offer undercover photographic evidence?

Paul Burstow: Let me start by addressing the whistleblowing issue. Terry Bryan, the whistleblower in this case, is to be applauded for his tenacity in pursuing it. The Government have been clear about the need to strengthen the arrangements and safeguards for whistleblowers, because that is an essential first way in which we can make sure that the system protects those who are vulnerable. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government have in some way cut the number of inspections, but he should reflect back to 2008 when his Government introduced the current mandate for the CQC and changed the basis on which it would inspect. That is what led to the changed inspection system. Perhaps he should ask some questions about that as well.

Robert Buckland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the model of large-scale institutionalised provision for people with learning difficulties is now broken and that we should support
	even more moves towards personalised and supported care close to the families and loved ones of people with learning difficulties?

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The move towards personalisation and greater supported living is undoubtedly the direction that we wish to move in. That was started by the previous Government and we have been continuing it. We have made a massive transfer of resources from the NHS to local authorities to support that very transfer of responsibility, which is undoubtedly the way to deliver better results for individuals.

Dennis Skinner: Is it not self-evident that if there were a full inquiry we would be able to hear about the owners and the people who make money out of these business ventures—businesses such as Lydian Capital Partners, which owns Winterbourne View, and people such as J. P. McManus and John Magnier, who have rubbed shoulders in royal circles? Is it not ironic that those two billionaire Irishmen, at the same time as the British people are bailing out the Irish economy, are making misery for disabled people by inflicting the damage they have caused and are making money in the process?

Paul Burstow: In my public statements and in my statement today, I have made it clear that the spotlight needs to be shone just as clearly on the provider organisation in this case, and not just on the CQC. That will be my continued intention as we pursue this matter to its conclusion.

Sarah Wollaston: Will the Minister address the question of how long these vulnerable people were filmed being abused, because that simply would not have been tolerated if they were children?

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not know the answer to the question of how long the people were filmed before the whistle was blown again by “Panorama”. However, it is an important point that will undoubtedly become clearer as we come on to the details of the inquiry.

Glenda Jackson: I endorse the Minister’s praise for the whistleblower in this horrific case, but may I remind him that he blew the whistle three times to the Care Quality Commission, which did precisely nothing? What are the Government doing to ensure that such a situation can never arise again?

Paul Burstow: The local authority was notified in the same way, so there are a number of agencies at which we need to look carefully and critically, and that is what the independently chaired serious case review will do. That is what the review by the CQC is about, and we will pull all those reviews together. If there are any gaps in the information that comes from that process, we will make sure that they are filled. However, the key thing is that lessons are learned along the way and changes are made straight away.

Robert Halfon: Further to what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda
	Jackson) said, given that the CQC clearly ignored the advice it was given, there should be resignations at the highest level—the buck has to stop somewhere.

Paul Burstow: I am afraid that I am not going to agree with the hon. Gentleman today that we should call for anyone’s head. I want the heads of that organisation to be relentless in pursuing the questions that hon. Members have asked today and which I have asked since this came to light about why failures occurred—not just the CQC’s acknowledged failure but failures by others in allowing this to go on for the time it did. I am not calling for resignations, but I am calling for action and resolution. Learning should take place, and there should be change as a result of that learning.

Mark Durkan: The Minister has rightly addressed the issue of whistleblowers. Will he assure us that there will be protection for whistleblowers in future, whether they are relatives or staff, so that they have the confidence to act? In relation to staffing issues, are any of the inquiries making any assessment of whether there is a correlation between shift lengths and pay rates and the poor care in some of those institutions?

Paul Burstow: Again, those are all matters that need to be properly considered and weighed up in the reviews and that the Department will want to make sure is part of the overall report. When that work concludes, we will report to the House and make sure that the information is available to all hon. Members so that they can assess it and make their own judgments. It is certainly the Government’s intention to strengthen the protections on whistleblowing. We are consulting on how that might be given effect, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to contribute to the consultation.

Duncan Hames: Does the Minister envisage that putting safeguarding adults boards on a statutory footing would help care home residents, their families and all those concerned; and would bring these incidents to light and, indeed, to a halt sooner in future?

Paul Burstow: It is essential to establish a statutory basis for safeguarding adults boards, but it is not sufficient, as other issues must be addressed in the review, which is why various aspects of the work are progressing. However, it is right that we should respond quickly to the Law Commission, which recommends that we should put the boards on a statutory basis, and that is what we will do when legislation is introduced.

Malcolm Wicks: If, as is often said almost as a cliché, a test of a civilised society is how we care for the most vulnerable—sadly, it is likely that Winterbourne is not an isolated example, and that even today many frail elderly people, often with dementia, and people with mental illnesses or learning difficulties are being abused and neglected—we must all think hard about how to move forward. Strong and unannounced inspections are clearly a significant part of the answer, but are there ways in which we can involve local communities and concerned citizens in safeguarding the well-being of people in homes—often private homes? If around every home there were two or three citizens who had rights to enter and could befriend some of the people there, that might be another way in which the
	community could add to the statutory services to try to prevent occurrences in future.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We must acknowledge that there will never be a time when there is an inspector in every room of every care home for every minute of every day. We must therefore make sure that the systems in place are robust, and that organisations are recruiting the right people and delivering the right training and supervision. However, the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the involvement of the community is spot-on. That is why we are proposing the establishment of HealthWatch and why we see that as an opportunity for citizens to become involved in the provision and scrutiny of health and social care in their communities.

Margot James: Very often a whistleblower is the vital link that people in such vulnerable circumstances have with the outside world, so I am pleased to hear that that will be a big part of the review. I have written to the chairman of the CQC to ask how many such whistleblower complaints were made in the past 12 months but not been followed up. The data are essential. May I have the Minister’s assurance that the review will find out that information?

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend draws attention to an area that we need to look at as part of the various aspects of the work that I described to the House today. Although I do not know the basis on which such data are collected by the CQC, I undertake to look at what data are available.

Gisela Stuart: I accept the Minister’s logic in not asking for heads to roll ahead of the report of the independent inquiry, but will he give the House an undertaking that once he has asked the questions and received the answers, he will not shy away from allocating responsibility and will do what the NHS is usually very bad at—allocating responsibility at some stage and asking people to resign?

Paul Burstow: I think I will say yes to that, but I want to make it clear that I am not answering in the context of hypotheticals. I do not know the conclusions of the exercise, and Ministers who come to the Dispatch Box and promise that things will never happen again are all too often and too soon proven wrong. We must make sure that we do everything we can to learn lessons from this to minimise the risks in the future, and we need to make sure that responsibility and accountability are at the heart of the reforms that the Government are making to health and social care.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister is right to say that we need to learn lessons from this, but how long will it take us? The CQC has admitted inspecting Winterbourne View three times in the past two years. The South Gloucestershire safeguarding board was informed in October, but apparently took no action before the programme was aired on television. This is not the first such scandal. When I was first elected, one of the first things I did was to persuade the Department of Health to commission the Bergner report into the Longcare home scandal on the borders of my constituency —a similar huge institution in which residents were raped, abused and tortured by the people who were given care of them. It seems to me that it is not just the
	individual institutions but Government who need to learn the lesson. How much money is the Minister putting into advocates and listeners of the volunteer kind mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), or of the professional kind, so that the voices of those who cannot always speak for themselves are heard in the inspection process?

Paul Burstow: I mentioned in my statement that each of the individuals who have been affected in this terrible way have advocates. The hon. Lady makes an important point about the role that advocacy plays for those who lack capacity or the ability in certain circumstances to advocate on their own behalf. We are looking at that as part of the overall reforms of health and social care, but as for a precise sum of money, I do not have a figure in my head that I can give her now. I will write to her on that point.

Kerry McCarthy: My elderly constituent, Mr Ivor Needs, has been looking after his vaccine-damaged son, Matthew, for many, many years. Ever since I became an MP, he has been expressing concern to me about what will eventually happen to Matthew when he is no longer able to look after him. How can we reassure people such as Mr Needs that the Government are pulling out all the stops and doing all they can to ensure that care homes in the Bristol and south Gloucestershire area will be fit for purpose and a fit place for him to entrust the care of his son?

Paul Burstow: I entirely understand that question. I suspect the hon. Lady speaks for many who saw the programme and therefore fear for their loved ones who may be in other institutions. That is why we have to act in a thorough and thoughtful way, why we have to act quickly, and why the various processes that I described today are the best way to reach conclusions quickly. Because of the separate criminal inquiry, a separate independent inquiry would not be able to start until those judicial processes had been completed. That is why we want the internal processes to go forward. We have provided external scrutiny to make sure that they deliver what we all want—greater assurance that the system will deliver the best quality care for our loved ones.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Minister has stated that there cannot be an inspector in every bedroom, and that is why he and hon. Members across the House this afternoon have acknowledged the vital role of whistleblowers in protecting vulnerable adults. Will he speak to colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that any changes to employment law do not make it more difficult for people to blow the whistle, especially new employees who often see a service through fresh eyes and therefore see faults that others have grown used to?

Paul Burstow: I will certainly have those discussions, and I would add that there is another area that we need to focus on, and that is the training and development of
	the work force. That is why just two weeks ago I announced not just a work force development strategy, but additional new resources to underpin that strategy for all providers to enable them to ask Skills for Care for the resources to develop their work force.

Diana Johnson: Will the Minister also look at the vetting and barring scheme in this country, and in particular have regard to the provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, that will remove millions of people who work with vulnerable adults from the thorough background checks that the Independent Safeguarding Authority carries out at the moment?

Paul Burstow: I will take away that point, reflect upon it and write to the hon. Lady rather than give her an off-the-cuff answer of any sort.

Anne Begg: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), I too believe that we are kidding ourselves if we think that this is a one-off and it is not happening day in, day out. There will be vulnerable adults living in their own homes today, behind locked doors, who are in fear of the carers who are paid to look after them. Might not another way of getting an eye into the locked environment be the use of telecare to make sure that someone outside is aware of what is happening in these locked institutions?

Paul Burstow: I would not want to give the impression that we would see that as a substitute for any of the other points that have been made on this urgent question today, but undoubtedly telecare, telemedicine and assisted technologies have their part to play, both in improving the quality of care and increasing independence for individuals. That is why the Government support that as part of the way in which we see the future for social care unfolding.

Catherine McKinnell: A recent Tyne Tees television report uncovered cases of appalling abuse and neglect in the north-east that are now being investigated, and the staff in those cases reported dreadful treatment from their employers, not just losing their jobs but having their professional reputation smeared. Will the Minister please elaborate today as there will be workers who are aware of abuse but are in fear of their jobs, who could report abuse if they had some reassurance today of the changes that the Government are looking to make to protect vulnerable workers?

Paul Burstow: The first thing I would say is that if anyone sees criminal activity of the sort that took place at Winterbourne View, they should blow the whistle on it. There is no if or but about that. The Government have consulted and we are looking at the responses to the consultation on whistleblowing. I am not in a position to elaborate further, but it is absolutely vital that people feel able and safe enough to come forward if they have concerns about neglect, abuse or poor-quality care.

Middle East and North Africa

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on north Africa and the middle east. On Saturday I visited Benghazi with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. We went to show our support for the people of Libya and their legitimate representatives, the national transitional council. Our overriding impression was of a great sense of optimism among ordinary Libyans, who are hopeful that Gaddafi will leave and deeply grateful for what the United Kingdom has done. I pay tribute to the brave men and women of our armed forces and to our diplomats and aid workers in Benghazi for their courageous work.
	Benghazi is functioning well under the circumstances, with police visible on the streets, many shops and restaurants open and food staples in good supply. We also noted a dramatic expansion of civil society groups, which rightly see themselves as one of the key building blocks of a free Libya.
	The UK’s approach is as I have set out many times before. We continue to take robust action to implement UN Security Council resolution 1973, which authorises military action to put in place a no-fly zone to prevent air attacks on the Libyan people and all necessary measures to stop attacks on civilians while ruling out an occupation force. The case for this action remains utterly compelling.
	Operating strictly within the limits of the UN resolution, we are steadily intensifying the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime. We have increased the tempo of air strikes against regime forces, which are currently taking place at a rate of approximately 50 strike missions per day and include the targeting of military command and control sites in Tripoli, regime tanks, artillery, rocket launchers and armoured fighting vehicles. Nearly 10,000 sorties have been carried out since 31 March, including more than 3,700 strike sorties, on top of operations to disrupt regime military activity and arms shipments at sea. On 1 June the North Atlantic Council agreed unanimously to extend NATO’s operations for a further 90 days from 27 June.
	It is right that we ensure that our military operations are as effective as possible and that we adapt our tactics as the regime forces change theirs. Last week Britain deployed Apache helicopters to operations in Libya, alongside French helicopters, which is enabling the precise and potent targeting of regime forces.
	The Gaddafi regime is isolated and on the defensive. Last week a number of senior military officers abandoned it, including five generals. The head of the National Oil Corporation also recently fled Libya. On 17 May, Arabsat joined European satellite companies in suspending Libyan state television broadcasts, a significant blow to Gaddafi’s ability to carry out psychological warfare, and we press all satellite companies to take similar action.
	British humanitarian support has already played a vital role in Libya. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has announced further assistance to protect 200,000 people in Misrata and elsewhere from land mines. We have deployed an international stabilisation response team to Benghazi,
	which is leading the international effort to plan detailed assistance for Libya when the conflict comes to an end, ensuring that clear plans are in place for the international community to support. Separately, we are providing additional communications equipment, uniforms and bullet-proof vests to help the national transitional council develop responsible security forces and to protect civilians.
	In our meetings, we found the NTC focused on Libya’s future. It has published a road map for the transition to democracy, with an interim Government including some technocratic members of the regime and elections. We have advised the NTC to develop its proposed transition in more detail to ensure that comprehensive plans are in place.
	Any political settlement in Libya requires an end to violence and Gaddafi’s departure. At the G8 summit in Deauville on 26 May, participants, including Russia, agreed that Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy and must go. On 11 May, at the Foreign Affairs Council, the EU agreed to intensify efforts to block the regime’s access to resources, funding, military hardware and mercenaries. Today the EU has added six regime-controlled port authorities in western Libya to the EU sanctions lists. This will help prevent the regime acquiring military resources and will support the protection of Libyan civilians.
	The next meeting of the Libya contact group will take place on Thursday in the United Arab Emirates, where Britain will call for all this international pressure to be intensified and maintained. The House should be in no doubt that the efforts of Britain and our partners are saving lives and enforcing UN resolutions. Had we not acted, the bloodshed would have been far greater and the consequences for Libya’s neighbours and the entire region would have been extremely serious.
	The Gaddafi regime is not the only Government seeking to suppress peaceful protest. Scores of people were killed in Syria over the weekend after demonstrations involving tens of thousands of people. Members on both sides of the House will have been horrified by the killing of many children and the death of 13-year-old Hamza al-Khateeb, who was allegedly tortured. The regime is using live fire against protestors and blocking UN efforts to get help to those in need. There have been reports overnight that a number of security force personnel have been killed in the town of Jisr al-Shughour, close to the Turkish border, and we call for restraint in response to this incident.
	Since my previous statement, our efforts to agree EU sanctions against President Assad and other individuals responsible for the violence and repression in Syria have been successful. We are exploring with our European partners the potential for further sanctions if the violence continues.
	Britain has circulated a draft UN Security Council resolution condemning the repression in Syria and calling for the Syrian Government to meet their people’s legitimate demands, to release all prisoners of conscience, to lift restrictions on the media and internet and to co-operate with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The House will appreciate that a resolution is not in our gift and needs the support of nine UN Security Council members and no vetoes. We are working to persuade other countries that the Security Council has a responsibility to speak out. President Assad is losing legitimacy and should reform or step aside.
	We must show the same resolve and purpose in supporting change and democratic development elsewhere in the region, using, for example, the economic appeal of the EU to act as a magnet for positive change in the region. We welcome the review of the European neighbourhood policy, issued on 25 May. It includes many British proposals and follows weeks of intensive engagement by Ministers, including the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. It offers a new partnership based on progressively greater economic integration, including trade, and increased funding for the southern neighbourhood of €750 million. It links EU support with progress on political and economic reform, and it includes a civil society facility and a European endowment for democracy to help fund new political parties and small non-governmental organisations.
	The G8 summit agreed the Deauville partnership, which will provide more than $20 billion in vital assistance to Tunisia and Egypt and to countries that commit to more open and democratic government, and in February I announced Britain’s new Arab partnership initiative to support civil society and democratic development in the region, with initial funding of £5 million. The Prime Minister announced at the G8 summit that we will increase that funding more than twentyfold, expanding it to £110 million over four years.
	The fund will provide support for lasting political and economic reform through the building blocks of democracy: independent institutions, political pluralism, free media and economic opportunity. It includes up to £40 million to work with Parliaments, civil society, human rights groups and reforming Governments, and up to £70 million to support growth and tackle the fundamental problems that leave so many millions of young people throughout the region without a job. This is in our vital national interest as well as true to our values.
	Tunisia has made significant progress towards a more democratic society, but there is a risk of political reform being destabilised by economic challenges. In Egypt there have been further demonstrations calling for faster political and economic reforms and a revised electoral timetable. We are concerned that planned parliamentary elections in September will be too early to allow political parties to organise their activity and to contest the elections. The Prime Minister and I have pressed the Egyptian authorities to ensure an open and plural election process.
	The situation in Yemen is extremely uncertain following President Saleh’s departure to Saudi Arabia to receive medical treatment and his transfer of authority to the Vice-President. We urge the Vice-President to work closely with all sides to implement the Gulf Co-operation Council agreement and to begin political transition now. Yemen faces huge humanitarian and economic challenges, and the Yemeni Government need to dedicate all their efforts to confront the impending crisis, with international support.
	Recent events have shown just how quickly the security situation in Yemen can deteriorate into ferocious and unpredictable fighting. It is of the utmost importance that all British nationals leave the country immediately by commercial means while it is still possible to do so, as we have advised them to do since 12 March. I warn again that it will be extremely unlikely that the British Government will be able to evacuate British nationals from Yemen.
	We are also concerned about developments in Bahrain, particularly the arrest and trial of a large number of politicians, doctors and nurses and the allegations of torture. I raised our concern and the need for the Bahraini Government to meet all their human rights obligations when I saw the Crown Prince of Bahrain last month. I also emphasised the need for a long-term political solution that builds bridges between the different religious communities.
	I welcome the lifting of the state of national safety on 1 June and the announcement by the King of Bahrain that a comprehensive and inclusive national dialogue will start on 1 July. Urgent dialogue on genuine political reform is the only way to address the legitimate concerns of the Bahraini people and to ensure long-term stability.
	With a month to go before South Sudanese independence on 9 July, we have made strong representations about the violence in Abyei and southern Kordofan. I met the Sudanese Foreign Minister yesterday and urged a peaceful and durable solution for Abyei and agreement on outstanding areas of the comprehensive peace agreement. This is only more urgent following the very worrying reports received just this morning of renewed fighting in southern Kordofan. We are in touch with the UN mission in Sudan and monitoring these developments closely. I urge both sides to cease all hostilities immediately and to return to negotiations under the auspices of the African Union.
	The Arab spring underlines the importance of a breakthrough on the middle east peace process. This long-standing conflict needs to be resolved, through negotiations, to give the Palestinian people the state that they need and deserve and the Israeli people long-term security and peace. The status quo is not sustainable, nor will these populations be immune from the effects of change and instability elsewhere. We strongly support President Obama’s recent statement that negotiations should be on the basis of 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps and proper security arrangements, and along with France and Germany we are pressing the parties to return to the table.
	The new Palestinian Authority should be composed of independent figures on the basis that President Abbas set out on 4 May. As was the case with the outgoing authority, it should uphold the principle of non-violence, be committed to a negotiated two-state solution, and accept previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Hamas will remain a proscribed terrorist organisation unless and until it abandons violence and commits to a two-state solution, and we call again for the immediate release of Gilad Shalit. The UK will judge a future Palestinian Government by their actions and their readiness to work for peace. We are also concerned by this weekend’s violence in the Golan heights, resulting in many deaths, and we continue to urge restraint and call for the avoidance of the lethal use of force.
	There must also be no let-up in our efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation in the middle east. Iran is combining brutal suppression of Opposition leaders at home with the provision of equipment and technical advice to help the Syrian regime to crush protests in Syria. This is unacceptable, and compounds our concern about Iran’s behaviour and its intentions over its nuclear programme. We support peaceful pressure on Iran to persuade it to negotiate, backed by the offer by the UK, the US,
	Russia, China, France and Germany to reach an agreement through talks. That is why the UK has recently helped to extend Iran sanctions in the EU, with over 100 new designations, while keeping the door open to further negotiations. Until Iran negotiates seriously, international pressure against it will only increase.
	In all these countries, Britain’s approach in the coming months will be consistent and determined. We will support greater economic and political freedom while anticipating and addressing threats to our own security, and we will work with our allies to protect our nation’s interests while standing up for the highest values of our society.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.
	Let me begin my remarks with Libya. The mission to enforce Security Council resolution 1973 continues to have the support of the Opposition, but, as has been the case from the start, we will continue carefully to scrutinise the Government’s policy towards Libya. The brave and professional work of our armed forces in Libya has already helped to avert a slaughter in Benghazi and continues to provide vital support to the Libyan people, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that they continue to have the support of every Member of this House.
	It has been clear from the outset that this conflict was always going to be easier to start than to finish. I therefore note all that the Foreign Secretary has said about post-conflict planning and, in particular, the work of the transitional national council, which is now producing a road map towards a more democratic future post-Gaddafi. Could he give the House a sense of the time scale by which further documentation might be available and what assessment he has made of the TNC’s capability to meet the challenges set out in this plan? Can I take it from his words this afternoon that in addition to our significant military commitments, the United Kingdom, in the form of the international stabilisation response team, is now also in the lead in developing the international community’s post-conflict planning?
	On the Apaches, I think it is a matter of record that the French Defence Minister, Gérard Longuet, announced the British deployment before it was confirmed to this House. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is a matter of regret when French Ministers seem better informed about the deployment of British military personnel than the British Parliament?
	I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about the increased pressure on the regime, but given the continuing limited capacity of the opposition forces to make broader strategic gains within Libya, by what means does he think the pressure can and will be increased in the weeks ahead?
	Let me turn to events in Syria. I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation of the actions of the Assad regime thus far, and with what President Obama said recently:
	“The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.”
	Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the regime’s efforts to shut down internet and mobile networks in parts of Syria? What work, if any, is under way in the United Kingdom to support people in countries such as Syria, whose freedom of expression is being restricted in that way?
	Given the welcome work that is under way at the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary provide the House with an assessment of the prospects for securing support among the P5 members for a resolution on Syria? What impact does he judge the action in Libya has had on those prospects? Will he tell the House whether consideration is being given to referring Syria’s leaders to the International Criminal Court? Does he agree that the European Union can further strengthen such pressure? The EU can and should be looking at further sanctions on the regime, irrespective of what is or is not agreed at the Security Council. What discussions have the Government held with the Arab League on Syria, given its regrettable silence to date on that issue?
	The situation in Bahrain continues to be deeply concerning. I reiterate our belief that the legitimate demands of protesters should be met with reform and not repression. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore give the House more details on the points that he and the Prime Minister made to the Crown Prince of Bahrain at the end of his recent visit to London? Did they raise the issue of military courts continuing to dispense summary justice? Did they raise the cases of the hundreds of protesters who have been jailed and the 90 or so who have been killed or simply disappeared? If they did raise those questions, what answers did they receive? What answers did they receive on the sharpening polarisation between communities within Bahrain?
	In that context, what discussions have taken place between the Government and the governing body of Formula 1, the FIA, about its recent decision to reinstate the Bahrain grand prix in October? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that now is not the time to decide on that event, especially given the need for restraint, reform and reconciliation to be the focus in Bahrain in the months ahead?
	When I visited Tunisia recently, a number of senior figures in the transitional Government and the fledgling political parties felt that the European Union had not come up with an assistance package to match the scale of the task on which they have embarked. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore update the House on what steps Britain is taking to ensure that more comprehensive offers than those that have been outlined are made to Tunisia and Egypt to help them on the path to democracy and to assist in their economic development?
	I concur with the Foreign Secretary’s concern that September is too early to ensure that all political parties in Egypt have sufficient time to organise their activities and contest the elections. Following the work of my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for International Development to highlight this issue, how confident is the Foreign Secretary that the place of women in Egyptian society will be advanced and not set back by the constitutional settlement that is under construction?
	Given our vital interest in the emergence of broader based democratic, prosperous countries across the middle east, how does the Foreign Secretary respond to the report by the Institute of International Finance, which
	predicts that Egypt’s economy will contract by 2.5%? Inflation is now above 12% and unemployment is up this year. According to Reuters, the country’s foreign exchange reserves fell by as much as a third in the first three months of the year. Newspaper estimates suggest that $30 billion have left Egypt since the start of the revolution. Given that the Deauville partnership of which he spoke applies not to one country but to the whole region, and given the scale of the capital flight, does he really feel that the World Bank’s package of $1 billion in each of the next two years and the International Monetary Fund’s loan of $3 billion are adequate? Can he really assure the House that he is confident that the international community’s response is appropriate to the opportunity and the risk of the present moment in the middle east?
	There have been significant developments in relation to Israel and Palestine over the last few weeks, to which the Foreign Secretary alluded. I welcome the US President’s decision to reaffirm his country’s long-standing support for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders and mutually agreed land swaps. Last week’s clashes on the Israel border and the Golan heights, in which a number of protestors were killed or injured, were deeply concerning. Israel of course has a right to protect its borders, but can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what the Foreign Office is doing to ensure that Governments on both sides of those borders do everything they can to avoid provocations and escalations that make it harder to find peace? After the President’s speech in the United States and his speech to parliamentarians here in Westminster Hall, can the Foreign Secretary update us on any further discussions that he has had with Secretary of State Clinton on how, in practical terms, the United States and the UK will push for progress on the issue in the coming months? In addition—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the shadow Secretary of State is approaching his last sentence.

Douglas Alexander: I am indeed.
	In addition, given the widespread discussion that the Palestinians plan to argue for statehood at the United Nations later this year, can the Foreign Secretary give his assessment of, first, where European Union allies are on that issue and, secondly, when the UK Government intend to come to a final view on the matter?

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that wide range of questions. There are many subjects within the topic of the middle east and north Africa. I am grateful to him, of course, for joining me in paying tribute to the work of our armed forces, diplomats and aid workers, and for reaffirming what we said together in the House on 21 March—that we needed to avert slaughter in Benghazi. The action that we took did so, and that has been the foundation of the unity of this House on the conflict in Libya. We continue to be grateful for that.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale for the national transitional council producing more detail. I hope that it will do so at the contact group meeting in Abu Dhabi this week, and that it will take every further opportunity to publicise a more detailed programme for the process of transition in Libya. What it has already produced is absolutely sound, and we can support it, but it needs the added credibility of detail to be ready for Gaddafi’s departure.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that the work done by the stabilisation response team, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I visited in Benghazi on Saturday, means that Britain is in the lead in post-conflict planning. We met Italian and Turkish experts who are also working with the team there, but we are certainly playing a leading role.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the reference by a French Minister to the deployment of our helicopters. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary would tell him, the decision had not been taken in the United Kingdom at that time, although it was clearly assumed in other capitals. That has been known to happen before on other subjects, and I have no doubt it will happen again.
	The increasing pressure on the regime comes in all the ways that I set out in my statement. It is military, economic and diplomatic, and it is having its effect. There is no doubt that the regime has lost the initiative both in the military campaign and on the political scene in Libya in recent weeks, as a result of what we have been doing.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about Syria and internet use, this has been another unacceptable aspect of the Syrian Government’s behaviour in closing down freedom of expression however they can. We will always do what we can to protect people’s freedom of expression, but of course we are not universally able to do so in every county of the world. In the P5 on the Security Council, Russia and China have strong reservations about a UN Security Council resolution on Syria. Russia in particular has expressed those reservations and some hostility to a resolution. We continue to work on the matter at the Security Council.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about a possible reference to the International Criminal Court, but he will be aware that in the case of a country that is not a party to the ICC, as with Syria, such a reference would require a UN Security Council resolution. As we are not able at the moment to pass a resolution on the terms that I described, we are clearly also unable to pass a resolution on a reference to the ICC. The European Union is considering additional sanctions, as he called for, and I discussed the position with the Arab League when I was in Cairo a few weeks ago. However, Arab nations have more divided loyalties than they had in the case of Libya, so there is not the same degree of Arab League unity. We have to face up to that fact.
	The Prime Minister and I raised with the Crown Prince of Bahrain all the subjects that the shadow Foreign Secretary asked about. For his part, the Crown Prince is very keen for a national dialogue to be resumed and to mobilise moderate voices in Bahrain on both sides of what is, unfortunately, a very sharp sectarian divide. Formula 1 must take responsibility for its decisions, but if such an event is to take place, it should be a focus for improvements in Bahrain, and provide an incentive for all in that country to work together on a national dialogue. However, Formula 1 must make its own decisions.
	The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about several vital matters on Egypt and was quite right to draw attention to the very serious economic situation. In fact, the main conclusion that I drew from visiting Egypt a few weeks ago is that the economic challenge is, if anything, even bigger than the political challenge. Although
	the measures announced at the G8 and by the EU might have to be revised and expanded over time, they are an ambitious start. It is important that EU nation states follow up with real determination what the Commission has said. The risk of the policy that the EU has announced not being followed through is that nation states will say, “Well, market access for products from north Africa is not so easy,” and will not follow through on the commitments. We must be a strong voice for following that up, for implementing the support for civil society, human rights and the diversity of politics in those countries, and for helping the creation of liberal and secular parties. Part and parcel of that is the great importance of the strong participation of women in society and politics in Egypt and other north African countries, to which the shadow Foreign Secretary drew attention.
	On the middle east peace process, of course we are active in urging all sides to avoid provocations. We are in constant touch with France, Germany and the US in encouraging both sides back into negotiations on the back of President Obama’s speech. In my view, the strength of our case would be added to by a statement by the Quartet to follow the US statement. We have asked the US in addition to support that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking catch my eye, but I just remind the House that Members who entered the Chamber after the Foreign Secretary began his statement should not expect to be called.

Richard Ottaway: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and congratulate him on his visit to Benghazi with the International Development Secretary, which was right and timely.
	There is a gap between the humanitarian nature of resolution 1973 and the stated aim of removing Gaddafi. Russia’s shift of position means that a further UN resolution on Libya is conceivable. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that such a further resolution is necessary?

William Hague: The resolution on Libya is now nearly three months old, and circumstances have developed since then. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that it has been hard to adapt the resolution because of a lack of agreement on the Security Council to do so. We will continue to search for agreement on, for instance, adapting the sanctions regime, which of course requires unanimity in the sanctions committee, which is a bigger hurdle than a resolution in the Security Council itself. Russia’s position at the G8 holds out some hope that such agreements may be forthcoming, but I cannot yet say to my hon. Friend that the Russian Federation’s change of position at the G8 has been followed by a wider change of position at the Security Council and elsewhere.

Jack Straw: May I first express my appreciation to the Foreign Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, and to their officials and our armed forces, for the work that is being carried out, above all in Libya but across the middle east? May I ask the Foreign Secretary specifically about Israel? He
	said in his statement that the “status quo is not sustainable”—I think the whole House will agree with that—but does he not acknowledge that the one person who believes that the status quo is indeed sustainable is Prime Minister Netanyahu? It is perfectly obvious from the rebarbative, obdurate speech that he made in Washington straight after President Obama’s statement that he has no intention whatever of making any constructive moves towards a settlement. That is clearly accepted in the States, as I recognised when I was there over the past two weeks.
	In that context, is it not time for the British Government to abandon the approach of successive Governments, which is to deal with Israel with kid gloves? Should we not make it clear to Israel that we will make decisions in the interests of the Israeli people, of which the Israeli Government now seem incapable, as well as the wider Arab world?

William Hague: Prime Minister Netanyahu is the elected Prime Minister of Israel, and we must always bear that in mind, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should make a strong case, as we do, for an agreement based on the 1967 borders. Our Prime Minister met Mr Netanyahu a few weeks ago and made that case very strongly, as I have done to him and to the Foreign Minister, Mr Lieberman. We will continue to make that case based on diplomatic persuasion, but we will also vote in accordance with our convictions. In February, we voted in the Security Council for the Palestinian resolution on settlements. That was a clear indication of the view in this country and in this House on those matters and on the importance of taking forward the peace process. I would express this a bit more diplomatically than the right hon. Gentleman did, but it is incumbent on me to do so, as it is no longer incumbent on him.

Menzies Campbell: In spite of my right hon. Friend’s understandably restrained language in relation to Bahrain, does he understand that many of us in the House and outside it think that the decision to reinstate the grand prix is simply shameful, and that it does the sport of motor racing no favours whatever? If the dialogue that is to begin in July is to be given a good start, could that not involve the cancellation of the race and, equally importantly, the release of those doctors and nurses who have apparently been arrested for having the temerity to tend the wounded?

William Hague: It is very important that due process should be followed. One of the most alarming things is the use of military courts in such cases. That was one of the issues that we took up with the Crown Prince, and on which we are looking for further assurances from the Bahraini Government. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that the sport of Formula 1 has not done itself any good by that announcement. The important thing is to encourage all sides to get back into a real dialogue. There is no way for Bahrain to proceed into the future without a successful dialogue between the two communities; there is no other way of resolving the situation in Bahrain. We must continue to be on the side of that dialogue while always taking up our very strong human rights concerns, as we have done with the Crown Prince and as I have done in my telephone calls with the Foreign Minister. We will continue to do that.

Bob Ainsworth: On post-conflict planning for Libya, the Foreign Secretary is reported to have said at the weekend that although such planning is vital, it is as yet in an “embryonic” state. I do not know whether that is true, but it is what I read in the press. Surely there is now an urgency to post-conflict planning. The Gaddafi regime could go on for some time yet but, equally, it could be on the point of collapse. What is the hold-up? What urgency can the Foreign Secretary bring to post-conflict planning for Libya, and what can he tell the House about the problems and plans involved?

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out the urgency of this situation. This is why we are taking the actions that we are. The main case that I made to the national transitional council in Benghazi was that it must step up its own planning for the day that Gaddafi departs. In Libya, it will have prime responsibility for proceeding into the future in a stable, democratic way. We are, however, at the forefront of the work being done. There is real urgency involved, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has sent the stabilisation response team to Benghazi. It is undertaking its assessment there now and will return within the next week or so to write its report. All its work has been accelerated—[ Interruption. ] Well, it has to be a good report, as well as being done quickly. There is a balance to be struck between those two things. The United Kingdom has taken a strong lead in this, and we have shown the greatest sense of urgency of all the Governments that are engaged in the issue.

Nicholas Soames: The Foreign Secretary is clearly right to give priority to the need to get rid of Gaddafi in short order, and then to bring what help we can to the transitional government, but does he agree that the linchpin of the whole of the middle east is Egypt, and the encouragement of the values of human dignity, freedom and opportunity there? Will he quantify what further assistance the British Government are giving to the Egyptian people to help them in their democratic process?

William Hague: Clearly, Egypt, with its geographic position, its vast population and its history, is at the centre of so much; my hon. Friend is quite right about its central importance. As I said earlier, the economic side of our work with Egypt is of prime importance. To quantify it further, Egypt will or can benefit from the £110 million Arab partnership fund, to which I referred earlier; from the entire EU southern neighbourhood policy, with €750 million of additional funding; and, indeed, from the $20 billion of various forms of financing set out at the G8 summit in Deauville. That is the quantification of the available assistance, most of which, given the distribution of the economies in north Africa, is available to Egypt. It is also necessary for Egypt to undertake its own economic reforms to give confidence to investors and the private sector so that the country can succeed; it cannot all be done by the international community. The Egyptians must have the right environment for economic success set out by their own Government as well.

Denis MacShane: Why did the Foreign Secretary use the term “allegations” of torture about what The Timesreported as
	“47 health professionals… on trial, accused of seeking to overthrow the Gulf state’s monarchy”
	in a closed court. It continued:
	“The doctors and nurses did this, in reality, only by treating the sick. Only the most paranoid of regimes could see treason in the Hippocratic oath.”
	Instead of rolling out the red carpet at Downing street, is it not time that the Foreign Secretary got a little bit more robust with this torturing regime?

William Hague: It is often necessary to use the word “allegation” and I have used it in respect of certain cases in Syria, which are as disturbing as some of the cases the right hon. Gentleman mentions in Bahrain. He has been a journalist in his time, so he will know that, based on what we read in newspapers, we sometimes have to refer to “allegations” rather than “established facts”. Of course, these things are a huge cause for concern. It is important, however, to maintain our own contact with, and pressure on, those in Bahrain who are looking for a successful dialogue. One of those is the Crown Prince of Bahrain. It is important to maintain contact both with him and with those on the Shia side in Bahrain. Simply not to talk to anybody in Bahrain because terrible things have happened would not be the correctly constructive position of this country.

Edward Leigh: Will the Foreign Secretary say a bit more about post-war planning? As we saw in Iraq, getting rid of a bloody tyrant in the middle east is a lot easier than ensuring stability afterwards. Let me press him more particularly on these talks with Italian experts. What exactly does that mean? Benghazi and Tripoli were divided for centuries before the Italians imposed unity. What evidence is there that Tripoli will co-operate with the national transitional council after the fall of Gaddafi, if he does fall?

William Hague: Of course these are valid questions from my hon. Friend. We do not know what the exact circumstances will be whenever it is that Colonel Gaddafi departs the scene. We do know that the national transitional council is preparing for that and we have advised it to prepare more intensively. Already included in the national transitional council are members representing the Tripoli area—in fact, I met those members on Saturday—so it already has representation from all parts of Libya. Its stated goal is to include current members of the current regime—what one might call the more technocratic members of it—in an interim Government. The plans are there; they need fleshing out in more detail, but they are more grounded in sensible reality than was the case immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State has highlighted the pending independence of South Sudan on 9 July, which no doubt we all welcome. Will he confirm that this was accepted by the United Kingdom Government after the international norm of a single independence referendum?

William Hague: There was a single referendum, but there was also a 99% vote in favour.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome the statement. I have just returned from a visit to Cairo. Whoever one speaks to there—the Muslim Brotherhood, the military or, indeed, the youths in Tahrir square—no one can predict where Egypt will be
	in 12 months’ time, but what is certain is the wish for a delay in the elections, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. What encouragement is Egypt being given to allow the newly formed parties time to establish their democratic base, rather than allowing the old institutions to keep their momentum going?

William Hague: The case advanced by my hon. Friend is mounting all the time, as is apparent to many in Egypt and outside. We must respect the sovereignty of the Egyptians—it is their decision—but we will certainly be making the case, as the United Kingdom, that they would be wise to delay the parliamentary elections. In fact, there would be merit in their holding a presidential election before the parliamentary elections, which I believe would allow the most orderly transition to a democratic system. We will make that case, while respecting the fact that the Egyptians must make their own decisions in Cairo.

David Winnick: Does the Foreign Secretary really believe that his remarks about the killing of Palestinian demonstrators by Israel—it was Israel, by the way, which was not mentioned by him—were sufficient, and that remarks that he made urging restraint were enough? Would it not be far better to condemn absolutely what happened over the weekend? I thoroughly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) that it is time that the British Government made it clear to Israel that certain actions, such as what happened over the weekend, are totally unacceptable.

William Hague: Obviously we condemn anything that leads to unnecessary deaths, and I have made a strong appeal for avoidance of the use of lethal force. Israel’s response is certainly one that should be criticised, but Israel is not the only country that may be criticised in this regard. The area on the other side of the Golan heights boundary is under the direct control of the Syrian Government, and the access that people have gained there leads one to speculate about the motives of the Syrian Government in this matter. So the responsibility may not be all on one side, and trying to cross the borders is not the way to resolve the problems of the middle east.
	I think we are all absolutely clear about the fact that the use of lethal force should be avoided whenever possible.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. There is intense interest, which is reflected in the number of Members who are seeking to catch my eye. I want to accommodate colleagues because these are very important matters, but there is now a premium on economy, a legendary example of which I know will now be provided by Mr Mark Pritchard.

Mark Pritchard: Thank you for your generosity, Mr Speaker. No pressure!
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the recent violence on the Israeli-Syrian border may well be a cynical strategy on the part of the Syrian regime to try
	to distract the eyes of the international community from the regime’s own brutality against, and murder of, its own people within its own borders?

William Hague: My answer to my hon. Friend is in line with my answer to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). The area on the other side of the boundary fence is under the control of the Syrian Government, and people are able to draw their own conclusions from that.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Foreign Secretary credibly continue to say that Britain is not militarily involved in a war for regime change in Libya? While there are enormous concerns about violations of human rights by the Gaddafi regime and its forces, there are also reports of human rights violations by the forces opposing Gaddafi. Did the Foreign Secretary raise those with the transitional council during his visit? Is he at all concerned about the role that Saudi Arabia is playing across the region, and about its own human rights abuses? He did not mention Saudi Arabia once in his statement.

William Hague: Let me answer some of those questions. We did raise with the members of the national transitional council the need to uphold the very highest standards in their own behaviour and treatment of prisoners, for instance. The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred said that the council was upholding the Geneva conventions, unlike the Gaddafi regime.
	Can we still credibly argue—to put the hon. Gentleman’s question another way—that military action is within the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolutions? Yes, we can. If we were not taking the action we are taking, there is no doubt that the regime forces would move back into the harassment, threatening and killing of the civilian population of Libya.

Rory Stewart: Given that the Foreign Secretary has so eloquently pointed out that Libya is just one, and perhaps not the most important, part of the events happening in the middle east at present, will he please reassure the House that nothing we do in Libya alienates the support of the Arab world or the UN Security Council, on whom we depend, for solving the much bigger issues of a dozen countries over the next 20 years?

William Hague: That question is about the importance of maintaining the international coalition and staying within the terms of the UN Security Council resolutions. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are Arab nations involved in this military action as well, and many more are giving it logistic and financial support, or support in the form of overflight rights. We also expect more Arab nations than before to attend the contact group meeting in Abu Dhabi, so we are enlarging the coalition of support on Libya, including with many nations of the middle east. We are also communicating with the people of the middle east in every possible way, such as through satellite television channels, to explain what we are doing. Certainly if our visit to Benghazi was anything to go by, there is very strong support for what we are doing among ordinary people, representatives of civil society and the press.

Gerald Kaufman: In the light of the report in yesterday’s The New Yorker that Barack Obama used his recent visit to canvass western European Governments to vote against the recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations, will the right hon. Gentleman affirm that this Government will vote in favour of the recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September, since no decision could be more calculated to force the Israelis to come to their senses?

William Hague: We have taken no decision about that, and it would be premature to do so. This situation may arise in September. At the European Foreign Affairs Council, my advice to all my colleagues of the other 26 European nations was that we should withhold our statements on that issue. The fact that we have done so, and that we will judge events over the coming months, may be one factor that encourages all parties to behave responsibly over those few months.

Jo Swinson: Across the middle east and north Africa, appalling stories are emerging of the torture and abuse of civilians during this unrest. Last week, an Egyptian general admitted that women protestors had been subjected to forced virginity tests, and in Misrata two Libyan soldiers told the BBC how they had been ordered to take part in the gang rape of young women. What can the UK and the international community do to ensure that the perpetrators of these abuses are brought to justice, and, in line with UN Security Council resolution 1325, how will women be properly engaged in the post-conflict reconstruction?

William Hague: We can do many things, which we are doing. They include the following: in the case of the situation in Libya, reference to the International Criminal Court; in the case of many other countries, encouraging their Governments and domestic legal systems to take these problems seriously, and to bring about reconciliation through facing up to what has happened over recent months; and in the cases of regimes that are not listening to that, we are of course trying to intensify the pressure in other ways, as I have described. Our entire programme of encouraging civil society, human rights and the development of political parties is also in line with the strong participation of women in these societies.

Mike Gapes: How can there be a comprehensive, inclusive national dialogue in Bahrain when secular Opposition leader Ibrahim Sharif is on trial, and moderate Wafaq MPs Matar Ibrahim Matar and Jawad Fairoz have been arrested and detained? Is it not time that they were released, so that they can take part in such a dialogue?

William Hague: Certainly I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a successful dialogue will have to be with senior representatives of the Opposition and in different circumstances, but that should not stop us trying to encourage that dialogue. The alternative policy to the one we are pursuing is to condemn all concerned and say there is no hope for dialogue. We have to encourage those on both sides of the divide in Bahrain who believe in dialogue to undertake it. Clearly, however, they are not starting from an advantageous position given all the things that have happened in recent months, including the things to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Richard Fuller: The good work of our armed forces, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Libya depends on the support of the United States. Does the Foreign Secretary have any comment to make on moves in the US Congress to review President Obama’s decision on his commitment to our efforts in Libya?

William Hague: This has been a long-running constitutional issue in the United States of America between various Presidents and Congress, and I probably have enough on without wading into American constitutional theory. We are assured by the US Administration that—[Interruption.] No, I really am not going to wade into that. We are assured by the US Administration that they are entirely satisfied with the powers they have to undertake the operations that they are undertaking and that those operations will continue.

Chris Bryant: In a year’s time, the barbarous regimes in Bahrain and Syria will probably expect to send teams to the Olympics here in London, along with a load of officials, who will doubtless stay in some very polite London hotels. Will that really be right if the atrocities continue?

William Hague: It really is premature to consider that. I am not a regular fan of boycotts of the Olympic games, which are brought up every time there is an Olympic games for one reason or another. We should be very reluctant to advocate the boycotting—

Denis MacShane: Mrs Thatcher supported the boycott in 1980.

William Hague: Well maybe we should learn from what happened 30 years ago. We should be reluctant about advocating boycotts, but the question is premature in any case.

Bob Blackman: The reported reopening of the border between Gaza and Egypt runs the risk of refuelling Hamas and Islamic Jihad. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to make sure that the Egyptian Government stop assisting Hamas and Islamic Jihad, so that pressure can be brought on all sides to return to the negotiating table?

William Hague: Clearly, we do not want the Egyptian Government to do anything that will increase the risk of violence in Gaza or emanating from Gaza, but I must say that I do not think that the reopening of crossings necessarily leads to that. The closure of borders in Gaza has tended to strengthen Hamas, creating a corrupt economy on which it has been able to thrive and increasing the sense of grievance on which it is based. So I do not think that Egypt’s announcement, in itself, represents a strengthening of Hamas, but of course we must be on the alert for anything that would lead to more weapons going into Gaza and to an increased risk of violence.

Richard Burden: Motor racing is a sport and an industry where Britain leads the world; the majority of Formula 1 teams are based here. Does that not give us a special responsibility to make it much clearer to the FIA that its decision to reinstate the Bahrain grand prix is wrong ethically and on safety
	grounds, that its decision is bad for the long-term reputation of Formula 1 and that it is absolutely clear that there is widespread opposition to the decision among teams and among Formula 1 drivers? We should be clearer in asking the FIA to think again.

William Hague: Clearly there is widespread opposition of the kind that the hon. Gentleman describes, and the FIA must take that into account as it considers the decision it has made. It must make its own decisions—we should be clear about that—but the widespread opposition that he refers to is clear.

Christopher Pincher: In his statement my right hon. Friend rightly said that the national transitional council represents the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people. So does he believe that the $53 billion-worth of frozen Libyan assets, including the $182 million-worth allegedly held by the Royal Bank of Scotland, will be released to the NTC for it to dispose of as it wishes?

William Hague: It is not possible to release those assets under the current UN resolutions—of course we have looked at this matter, but all the advice that we have been given is that it is not possible to do that. Other countries have received the same advice and, certainly, all other European countries are in the same position. It is very important that we stay within the UN resolutions and retain the moral authority of operating within international law, even though that is inconvenient in some respects and requires us to do some things differently from how we might wish. So that is a higher priority than finding a way around the UN resolutions. If it is possible to change them at any stage, we would be ready to do so.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that events in Syria have the potential to be even more destabilising than events in Libya given the cynical attempt to stir up problems on the border with Israel? Will he therefore outline to us the additional sanctions on Syria that he is considering with the EU partners mentioned in the statement?

William Hague: The sanctions so far cover President Assad and 22 other individuals in terms of asset freezes and travel bans. Additional sanctions would involve the designation of further individuals involved in repression and violence in Syria and of commercial organisations, so the sanctions on Syria would be wider spread. I do not want to pretend to the hon. Gentleman that such sanctions will change the entire situation in Syria. They are a demonstration of our strong view rather than something that will transform the situation there. We must recognise our limited leverage in Syria, but we are exercising the leverage that we have.

Dan Byles: On the post-conflict phase, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that if the UK were to give long-term assistance to Libyan police and security forces, that assistance would be paid for by the Department for International Development and not the Ministry of Defence?

William Hague: Yes. Such support predominantly comes from the Department for International Development or out of the reserve. The costs of the operations in Libya are being met from the reserve, as the Chancellor has said, so they are not an additional burden on the Ministry of Defence.

Heidi Alexander: What conditions, if any, have been placed on the Arab partnership fund to ensure women’s equal political participation and—dare I say it—representation in north Africa’s emerging democracies?

William Hague: This is one of the objectives of the fund and £40 million of it is there to encourage political reform. That is very much one of the objectives. As I have said several times before, the encouragement of civil society, human rights groups, NGOs, and training for liberal and secular political parties is designed to ensure, among other things, that women have a strong role in the politics and society of these countries. We will strongly champion that.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Israel has the right to defend its own borders, given that the consequences of not doing so would be enormous? Does he agree that Iran is likely to have had influence on recent events over the weekend and has he made an assessment of Iranian influence in Syria?

William Hague: Israel does have the right to defend its borders but it must do so in a sensible and proportionate way; I think we should stress that. I have no direct evidence of Iranian involvement in the events around the borders of Israel but I have seen a good deal of evidence of Iranian involvement in Syria in attempting to crush dissent, including in the provision of riot control equipment and of expertise in how to flood particular towns and cities with security forces for the purposes of repression. Iran has a strong role in trying to quell the views of the people of Syria and we should condemn it for doing so.

Mark Durkan: Although I acknowledge the scope and energy of the Foreign Secretary’s personal engagement on these issues, he must accept that there is some concern that he chooses to use language that is so elliptical in relation to some clear-cut events in comparison with others. On the Syrian resolution that the Government are seeking, does any of the resistance voiced include any reference to the possibility that the existing resolution on Libya is being exceeded? If so, how does he refute that?

William Hague: I do not think that that is a major factor in this. As has been pointed out by hon. Members earlier, Russia, which was not an enthusiast for the Security Council resolution on Libya, has conceded at the G8 that Gaddafi has lost legitimacy and must go. When it comes to the resolution on Syria there are other factors at work. Syria has stronger relationships with various countries around the Arab world and with Russia than Libya has had in recent years. There are more powerful factors at work in making countries reluctant to condemn the Syrian Government, but if these events continue as they are, it must be acknowledged
	across capitals all over the world that the Syrian Government’s behaviour is unacceptable and we will make a renewed push at the United Nations on that basis.

Rehman Chishti: The Foreign Secretary will know that the United States previously appointed Jerry Bremer as the Governor and administrator in Iraq to oversee the transition to democracy. Will the United Kingdom appoint someone to a similar position to oversee the transition to democracy in the post-Gaddafi regime?

William Hague: I doubt it because we are not intending to be an occupying power in Libya, where I hope that the situation when Gaddafi goes will be radically different from the situation in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. It will not be a situation in which armies have come from outside to remove the system and to try to construct something completely new; it will be about the success of people inside Libya who have fought for their freedom and are able to build a structure in accordance with their own culture and society. I am not anticipating there being anyone from Britain to oversee that.

Dennis Skinner: Would not a fair summary of the Foreign Secretary’s statement be that it suggests the halcyon days of the Arab spring are fast moving towards a harsh winter and that all that will remain is a big bill for the British people to pay?

William Hague: No; whatever happens with the Arab spring, we should welcome people’s aspirations for freedom and democracy anywhere in the world, including in the Arab world. It is bound to cause many crises and difficulties along the way, but if we did not handle these things in a sensible way, the cost to this country in terms of uncontrolled migration into Europe and new breeding grounds for terrorism would be enormous. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s view is a very blinkered one.

James Morris: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that given all that is going on in the middle east, it is more vital than ever that the international community should take any means necessary to prevent Iran from getting a viable nuclear weapon?

William Hague: The way I would put it is that it is important to intensify the peaceful and legitimate pressure on Iran to turn it away from its nuclear programme. As I set out in my statement, we have secured in the past two weeks the designation of more than 100 additional entities in Iran that are in various ways engaged or associated with the nuclear programme. We are looking to other countries to intensify the pressure and we discussed this a great deal with President Obama and Secretary Clinton on their visit here a couple of weeks ago. We will continue to intensify that policy. This is of prime concern to the security of the region and the world.

Ben Bradshaw: Given what the Foreign Secretary rightly says about the importance of consistency, I am astonished that he thinks it could be remotely acceptable for the grand prix to go ahead in
	Bahrain. What evidence does he have that the representations that he and the Prime Minister are making constantly, as he tells us, to the Bahraini Government are having any effect at all?

William Hague: We will see over time the effect that we have in Bahrain. It is important to have channels of communication to the ruling family and the ruling group as well as to the opposition forces in Bahrain, and Britain is one of the few countries that has both those channels, which our embassy in Manama has built up over the years. We should use those channels constructively because there is no solution in Bahrain other than one based on a successful dialogue between both sides. We have to continue to encourage that.

Andy Slaughter: The Foreign Secretary has consistently condemned the use of live fire against unarmed protesters by murderous regimes such as Assad’s and Gaddafi’s, so why does he find it difficult today to condemn exactly the same thing by the Israeli regime? What protest is he making to the ambassador and to the Government of Israel and what sanctions will he consider if there is a repetition of these events, which go on week by week on all of Israel’s illegal borders?

William Hague: I have pointed out that the responsibility for the situation on the borders is not entirely on the Israeli side. I have made very clear our opposition to the use of lethal force and that the defence of borders and boundaries should be proportionate. Hon. Members should make no mistake about that. That is the message that we convey to the Israeli authorities. We should not be so short-sighted as to believe that in the case of Syria no one else is involved in trying to create those incidents and putting people in a position in which they are caught up in violent incidents.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his comprehensive statement. Will he be specific about the number of British nationals who have fled Yemen since the statement in March? Will he give us his estimate of the number of British nationals who remain in Yemen and, finally, why are there 80 British marines off the coast of Yemen and what do they intend to do? In the statement, he said that it was “extremely unlikely that the British Government will be able to evacuate any British nationals” left in Yemen.

William Hague: There is a good deal of evidence that many British nationals have left Yemen in recent months in response to our advice, although it is not always easy to track them all individually. Most British nationals who remain appear to be dual nationals, so they may not intend to leave under any circumstances—they are Yemeni as well as British. The number of people holding only British nationality is certainly down to a few hundred as far as we can see—fewer than 300 would be a fair estimate. There are British military assets in the region, but I am not going into the operational tasking of those assets. I restate that, whatever the assets we may have in the region, conducting a safe evacuation from a place where it would be difficult for people even to get to the airport if greater violence breaks out is not something on which people can rely.

Gisela Stuart: The Foreign Secretary suggested that one reason why we heard so little from the Arab League in recent weeks was the level of disagreement. Will he update the House on where agreement may be reached, as the support of the Arab League will be extremely important and vital to all of us?

William Hague: On Libya, the Arab League has been very clear and is very supportive of what we have done under the Security Council resolutions. I trust that it will be represented on the contact group in Abu Dhabi. This week, it is on Syria that Arab councils would be more divided, because the connections between some of their Governments and the Syrian authorities are much closer than they were in the case of Colonel Gaddafi. There is no doubt that Arab nations individually are, in many cases, playing a role in encouraging President Assad down a path of reform, although it may be too late for that. However, they are playing their role in doing so as individual nationals, rather than through the Arab League.

Naomi Long: With respect to the planned national dialogue in Bahrain, what representations will the Secretary of State make to the Bahraini authorities to ensure that that dialogue not only addresses the main sectarian tensions and political reform but wider issues of civil and religious liberty for other minority groupings in Bahrain?

William Hague: The hon. Lady makes an important point. For it to be a successful national dialogue, it will have to embrace all those concerns. In our next meetings with those authorities, I will certainly make the point that she has made in the House.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and colleagues for their co-operation.

Prevent Strategy

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the review of the Government’s strategy to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.
	Intelligence indicates that the UK faces a serious and sustained threat from terrorism. Osama bin Laden may be dead, but the threat from al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism is not. Indeed, the threat level from international terrorism remains at “Severe”, meaning an attack is highly likely. That threat comes both from foreign nationals and from terrorists born and bred in Britain.
	To tackle that threat, as the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in Munich earlier this year, we must not only arrest and prosecute those who breach the law, but we must stop people being drawn into terrorist-related activity in the first place. That will require a new approach to integrating our divided communities, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and delivered by Ministers across the whole of Government. In counter-terrorism policy, it will require an effective strategy to tackle radicalisation in this country and overseas. That is why, last year, I launched a review of the existing counter-radicalisation strategy known as Prevent. That review found that the Prevent programme that we inherited from the previous Government was flawed. It confused Government policy to promote integration with Government policy to prevent terrorism. It failed to tackle the extremist ideology that not only undermines the cohesion of our society, but inspires would-be terrorists to seek to bring death and destruction to our towns and cities. In trying to reach out to those at risk of radicalisation, funding sometimes even reached the very extremist organisations that Prevent should have been confronting. We will not make the same mistakes.
	Our new strategy is guided by a number of key principles. Prevent should remain an integral part of our counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, a full update of which we will publish later this summer. Its aim should be to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. Prevent should address all forms of terrorism, including the extreme right wing. That is only right and proper and will also provide a more flexible basis to adapt to emerging threats in the future.
	In a world of scarce resources, it is clear that Prevent work must be targeted against those forms of terrorism that pose the greatest risk to our national security. Currently, the greatest threat comes from al-Qaeda and those it inspires. The majority of Prevent resources and efforts will therefore be devoted to stopping people joining or supporting al-Qaeda, its affiliates or like-minded groups. But Prevent must also recognise and tackle the insidious impact of non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views that terrorists exploit.
	Prevent depends on a successful integration strategy, but integration alone will not meet our counter-terrorism objectives, and our integration programme should go much wider than just security and counter-terrorism. This was a fundamental failing of the last Government’s approach. They failed to promote integration, and where
	they did promote it, they did so through the narrow prism of counter-terrorism. So we will do more than any Government before us to promote integration, including through teaching our history and values in our schools, through the national citizen service, and through other policies, but we will do so separately and differently from Prevent. The combined effect of this work and of the new Prevent strategy will be an unyielding fight against extremism, violent extremism and radicalisation.
	It is critical that agencies, Departments and local authorities work to a common set of Prevent objectives to deliver the outcomes that we want. Public funding for Prevent must be rigorously prioritised and comprehensively audited. The previous Government were far too lax in spending in this area, as they were in so many others. Let me reiterate that under this Government, public money will not be provided to extremist organisations. If organisations do not support the values of democracy, human rights, equality before the law, participation in society—if they do not accept these fundamental and universal values—we will not work with them and we will not fund them.
	Within this overall framework, the new Prevent strategy will have three objectives. First, Prevent will respond to the ideological challenge and the threat from those who promote it. As the Deputy Prime Minister said in his speech in Luton, we must be much more assertive about our values. Let me be clear: the ideology of extremism and terrorism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Tackling that ideology will mean working with mainstream individuals and organisations to make sure moderate voices are heard. It will mean robustly defending our institutions and our way of life. So where propagandists break the law in encouraging or approving terrorism, it will mean arrest and prosecution, and where people seek to enter this country from overseas to engage in activity in support of extremist or terrorist groups, we will exclude them. Since coming to power, I have already excluded 44 individuals from the UK either because of unacceptable behaviour or for national security reasons.
	Secondly, Prevent will stop individuals being drawn into terrorism and will ensure that they are given appropriate advice and support. Radicalisation is a process, not a one-off event. During that process it is possible to intervene to stop vulnerable people gravitating towards terrorism. We will do this by building on the successful multi-agency “Channel” programme, which identifies and provides support for people at risk of radicalisation. I want to use this opportunity to make one thing clear—Prevent is not about spying on communities, as some have alleged. It is about acting on information from the police, the security and intelligence agencies, local authorities and community organisations to help those specifically at risk of turning towards terrorism. It is incumbent on everyone in this country to play their part in helping them do so.
	Thirdly, we will work with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation. It is right to acknowledge that progress has been made in this area, but that progress has been patchy and it must be improved. So we will work with education and health care providers, universities, faith groups, charities, prisons and the wider criminal justice system. We will also work to tackle the particular challenge of radicalisation on the internet, and to make better use ourselves of social media and other modern communications technologies.
	This review has been independently overseen by Lord Carlile of Berriew, and I pay tribute to him for his contribution. Lord Carlile has said that the new Prevent strategy has his full support. He said that
	“it provides a template for challenging the extremist ideas and terrorist actions which seek to undermine the rule of law and fundamental British political values and institutions. Its tone is clear, and its policy compelling. It offers a positive message for mutual respect, tolerance and liberty.”
	Prevent has not been without controversy. In the past, it received allegations that it was a cover for spying. Those allegations have been found to be false, but now we will make sure that this is seen and known to be the case. In the past, Prevent was muddled up with integration. It operated to confused and contradictory objectives—not any more. At times funding even found its way to the sorts of extremist organisations that themselves pose a threat to our society and to our security—not under this Government.
	Let me be clear. We will not fund or work with organisations that do not subscribe to the core values of our society. Our new Prevent strategy will challenge the extremist ideology, it will help protect sectors and institutions from extremists, and it will stop the radicalisation of vulnerable people. Above all, it will tackle the threat from home-grown terrorism. I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: We should take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who work so hard to protect our national security. Today we expected the Home Secretary to update the Prevent strategy, but she has done nothing of the sort. We support updating the Prevent strategy, but there is a massive gap between her rhetoric today and the reality of her policies. Where she should be building consensus around counter-terrorism, instead she has been political point-scoring. She has set out no actual proposals on how she would deliver in such an important area.
	Most of the work on the development of Prevent was done after the 7/7 bombings and it was treading completely new ground. Urgent work was needed to disrupt the process of radicalisation, but there was no experience to draw on, and a range of different approaches was rightly tried. Much of that work was supported by the Opposition at the time. Some like “Channel” were very successful; some were not as effective. We were clear from the very beginning that it would need to be reviewed and evolve in the light of the evidence. The same is true now.
	The Home Secretary, however, has claimed with great certainty that she will not make mistakes. If she believes that she now knows all the answers on how to tackle extremism and radicalisation, she is heading for a fall. In her desire to blame the previous Government for everything she is blinding herself and her Government to the fact that this is difficult work. Some of what she would like to do will work, but some will not, and it will need to be reviewed again, but that should be on the basis of evidence, not political positioning.
	The Home Secretary has not even told us what her new mistake-free strategy involves. We agree that some groups should not be funded because of their extremist views, but the review says that it found no evidence to indicate widespread, systematic or deliberate funding of extremist groups, either by the Home Office or by local
	authorities or police forces. She has told us nothing about the new framework that will somehow prevent it happening inadvertently with local decisions in place. She has said that there will be a new focus on integration from the Department for Communities and Local Government, but what is it, what will it do and how will it be funded? She has already cut 40% from the Prevent funding for local councils this year alone and they have major cuts still to come.
	The Home Secretary has claimed that there will be stronger work by universities and the NHS, but the Universities UK and the British Medical Association have already rejected her views. How workable are these plans if such critical stakeholders are hostile from the start? She has not set out different approaches for dealing with violent extremism, non-violent extremist and integration and seems to be confusing all three. Is it not the truth that there is a massive gap between her rhetoric and reality?
	The Prime Minister has claimed that there will now be no more of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism, but what will the Government actually do and how will they deliver? Police counter-terrorism budgets are being cut in real terms, as are the Foreign Office’s counter-terrorism programmes, and later today the Home Secretary will introduce a Bill that will make it harder, not easier, to prevent terrorism attacks by watering down elements of control orders. Despite all the Prime Minister’s strong claims about getting tough on extremists, there is still no sign that he will meet his pre-election promise to ban the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.
	I know from previous experience of the Home Secretary’s statements that if I give her a long list of questions, she will not answer them, so let me leave her with just one: will she confirm that the Government will not meet their promise to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and admit that sometimes it is not as easy in practice to deliver counter-terrorism and work to prevent extremism as it is to make grand political promises as she has done today?

Theresa May: I am rather disappointed in the tone that the right hon. Lady has taken in her response. On the one hand she said that she recognised that the Prevent strategy needed review, but on the other hand she has completely rejected the review that has taken place. She claims that no change is taking place, but clearly there is. On Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Government are concerned about that group’s actions and keep it under constant review. She asked me to confirm that that is a very difficult area in which to work, which I am happy to do. It is difficult to make the proper judgments in this area.
	When we came into office we looked at the previous Government’s approach and found that they had not looked at the issue of extremism but focused instead on violent extremism. We believe that it is important to look at extremism, because people involved in it can be led on to violent extremism and terrorist acts. We believe that it is also important to look at extremism because it can create an atmosphere in which people can more easily be radicalised towards terrorism. That is a key change that we are bringing about. We are looking at all forms of terrorism and have made that clear in what we are doing.
	I have identified a number of areas where I think not enough has been done to look at radicalisation. The right hon. Lady said that Universities UK had rejected the review’s statements relating to universities, but I have to say to her and to Universities UK that I consider one of the problems to have been a degree of complacency in universities and their unwillingness to recognise the radicalisation that can take place on their campuses and do anything about it. We aim to work with universities to ensure that in future, with regard to their pastoral duty of care to students, they take radicalisation seriously and act accordingly.
	There will be real differences in the approach we are taking. It has been a problem in the past that, because Prevent covered both integration and the counter-terrorism aspects of the strategy, it was perceived to be the securitisation of integration, so it is right that the Department for Communities and Local Government will take on the integration aspect of our policy and work on aspects of community cohesion.
	Finally, I think that it is absolutely right that the Government should look very carefully at the groups that are being funded, analyse and evaluate them properly and carefully monitor how money is spent. The previous Government did not do that.

David Davis: I welcome wholeheartedly my right hon. Friend’s statement and comments, not least because a couple of weeks ago I received a letter from a Muslim inmate of one of our high-security prisons, in which he said:
	‘Last week our prison service imam told us ‘not to believe western media’ in relation to the death of Usama bin Laden. The week prior to that the imam celebrated the escape of hundreds of Taliban prisoners from the Kabul jail.’
	He went on to list equally inappropriate teachings by prison imams in a total of five prisons. The Home Secretary is right to draw attention to the previous Government’s complacency over the issue. Will she give an undertaking that this will be put right and that we will not be able to say those things next year?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing that letter to the attention of the House and, in doing so, raising a very important aspect of the work on which we wish to focus. There is a great deal more to be done in prisons, and a number of steps that we intend to take are set out in the Prevent strategy today. I should be very happy to receive a copy of that letter, if he feels able to share it with me, so that we can look at the specific allegations that have been made, but we intend to work more carefully with prisons, prison staff, the National Offender Management Service and those going into prisons to deal with individual prisoners in order to try to ensure that we do not see the sort of activity taking place that he has identified.

David Blunkett: Who could possibly disagree with the three objectives that the Home Secretary has set out? But she has not done herself or her Government justice by seeking to make party political points about those who had to deal—I did not have to—with the reality of post-7 July 2005. I have just one very simple question. How can she this afternoon talk about building on our institutions and on an understanding of our
	values and history while the Education Secretary is proposing to withdraw citizenship from the school curriculum?

Theresa May: In relation to my comments on the previous Government, we did a proper review of the Prevent strategy to identify those areas where change was necessary. We have done that, and I have brought to the House a number of areas where we believe the previous Government’s strategy was flawed and where it is necessary to make changes, which I have set out before the House today.
	In relation to what is happening in education, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is quite clear about the necessity of ensuring that values are indeed taught in our schools, but that that is done in a number of ways, including through the proper teaching of our history.

Julian Lewis: During the cold war, Governments of Labour and Conservative persuasions differentiated between communists who were subversive and broke the law and communists who preached a totalitarian philosophy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the job of the police and of the Security Service to deal with those Islamists or, as I prefer to call them, un-Islamic extremists who break the law, but that the job of Prevent must be to destroy the philosophical basis of the perversion of the religion that they seek to convey?

Theresa May: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to ensure that those who break the law are dealt with appropriately. We need to ensure also that we challenge the ideology—or, the perverse ideology—that people use to lure others down the road of radicalisation and into violent acts and into terrorism. In terms of the Prevent point of view and the very clear counter-terrorism aspect of the strategy that we have identified, that work will be done in a number of ways. In the Prevent strategy, we set out how we will deal with issues such as the internet and the use of the internet to radicalise people, but it will also be done through work with individuals who are identified as vulnerable.

Hazel Blears: I am very disappointed at the tone that the Home Secretary has adopted today. She has been extremely partisan in her comments. It is very easy to talk tough on these issues, but what practical support will she give to women and to young Muslims to develop the skills and confidence to tackle that pernicious ideology? In particular, what will she do about the £4.2 million that the research, information and communications unit in the Home Office spent last year? It is supposed to be developing a counter-narrative, but I for one have not seen one useful piece or product of research and information that RICU has produced. At the same time, the money for communities has been slashed, but we have a real responsibility to support people in our communities, so that they have the skills to tackle this pernicious, political ideology that is all too prevalent.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is correct to say that it is important to ensure that individuals are able to tackle this perverse ideology, and part of Prevent’s work with individuals will be precisely about that—about enabling people to understand the perversion of the ideology.
	In relation to dealing with the wider aspects of community participation and cohesion, however, including looking at the involvement in society more generally, as we would like, of women from particular communities who are often not able or encouraged to do so, the Department for Communities and Local Government is looking at that issue in the integration strategy that it is developing.
	We refer to RICU, which was set up under the last Government, in the strategy. I fully accept the right hon. Lady’s point about communication, which is extremely important; that is why we are looking at the role that RICU plays in it.

Tom Brake: Does the Home Secretary agree that a clear divide must exist between the measures designed to tackle violent extremism and those designed to promote community cohesion, that funding must be denied to organisations that do not support our basic values in relation to respect for women and minorities, and that the most effective way to confront radical non-violent groups is to tackle their beliefs in open debate?

Theresa May: I certainly agree that we need to challenge the ideology. I also agree that the means by which we deal with violent extremism, or people who are vulnerable to radicalisation towards violent extremism, need to be separated from the wider task of community cohesion and working towards greater participation in society. In the past, people came to look with some concern at what was being done in the name of Prevent because it was trying to mix up those two aspects of work. It is important that we separate out the community cohesion work, which is overseen by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

George Howarth: As somebody who has high regard for the Home Secretary, I, too, express regret that she has chosen to express some of her views in such party political terms. Surely it is right that we seek unity across the House on this issue.
	Given that several thousand young Islamists in this country have been through training systems in Pakistan, can the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that that will be borne in mind in future and that the good work that has been carried out in Pakistan under Prevent and associated programmes will not be jettisoned, because it is important for the terrorist activities that take place in this country?

Theresa May: It is certainly the case that a strand of Prevent work takes place overseas and is overseen by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it is important that that work is properly evaluated and evidence-based so that we ensure that the money is being spent where it can be seen to be properly working. We need to look very carefully at how the money is spent in that area of activity, but we also need to ensure that it continues to take place, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be doing that. Separately from that, because the Department for International Development does not fund Prevent-related work, the work that DFID does in building up society has an impact in this area as well.

Patrick Mercer: The Home Secretary talked about the dangers from Islamist fundamentalism but did not, I am sure for good reason, mention the
	dangers from Irish republican terrorism. Could she account for the difficult nexus in terms of intelligence and prevention work on the mainland of the United Kingdom and how this policy will encompass it?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising Northern Ireland-related terrorism. The Prevent strategy that I have outlined specifically does not cover Northern Ireland-related terrorism because it is important that we work through the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Assembly and Ministers there, in looking at these issues. There is a responsibility for this in Northern Ireland, and it would not be right for us to bring Northern Ireland-related terrorism under the Prevent strategy that I have announced. However, certain aspects of the Prevent strategy have some commonality with themes in relation to Northern Ireland-related terrorism, and I am sure that others will draw on that.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for clarifying that point, but will she elaborate on it? Will she confirm that where a dissident republican suspect is found to be operational, active and gathering intelligence here on the mainland, they will come under this policy and will be subject to its restrictions, and, importantly, that they will not be sin-binned back to Northern Ireland but will be restrained here, where they are trying to commit their crime?

Theresa May: I assure the hon. Gentleman that anybody who is identified as being involved in acts of terrorism or preparatory acts of terrorism that are suitable for prosecution under the law will be prosecuted under the law.

Nicola Blackwood: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. The strategy highlights the targeting of university campuses by extremists for the purposes of radicalising vulnerable students. I noted her concern that some universities are complacent about those risks. Will she give more detail on how the revised Prevent programme will better protect students while not overwhelming universities with excessive burdens?

Theresa May: I am happy to look at that issue. That work has started in a number of ways. The National Union of Students has done good work on the role that it can play to prevent radicalisation on campuses by considering issues such as who is speaking on campuses. We will continue to work with the NUS to develop its approach, including to other university societies. We will also work with university vice-chancellors and staff on this issue. It is certainly not our intention suddenly to overburden universities with red tape. However, we hope that universities are prepared to recognise the role that radicalisation on campuses can play and accept that they have a responsibility to look at what is happening on their campuses.

Clive Betts: In the last Parliament, the Communities and Local Government Committee did a report on the previous Government’s Prevent strategy. One criticism that was made to our inquiry, to which the Secretary of State has alluded, is that there was confusion between a strand of the policy that dealt with individuals who were felt to be at risk of
	becoming involved in terrorism and other policies that were more closely related to social cohesion measures. Is the Home Secretary saying that the first of those issues will be the responsibility of the Home Office and the second the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government? Will there be any links between the two? If there are, how will the policy differ from that of the previous Government?

Theresa May: It is our intention that there will be different responsibilities for those matters. We will allow the Department for Communities and Local Government to identify how it wishes to operate its integration strategy. I believe that hon. Members will hear more from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the wider issues of community cohesion, participation in society and integration in due course. We will bring together a joint board to ensure that all activity takes place against the Government’s overall objectives in this area. I expect that that board will look at the interface between the Prevent strategy and the integration strategy of the Department for Communities and Local Government. We will not label the DCLG work as part of the Prevent strategy, and it will not be part of the counter-terrorism strategy run by the Home Office.

Lorraine Fullbrook: Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in South Ribble that these reforms will ensure that the Prevent programme is properly focused and, above all, more effective than it has been?

Theresa May: I welcome my hon. Friend to the House following her recent illness. It is good to see her back in her seat. It is certainly our intention to monitor how money is spent on Prevent to ensure that it is spent effectively. In looking at the programmes that work, we will ensure that the decisions that are made are fully evidence-based.

Pete Wishart: In what new ways will the right hon. Lady promote integration? What core values and whose history will now be taught in schools?

Theresa May: The last time I looked, there was a different education system in Scotland, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not suggesting that I will touch it. However, I think that people across the United Kingdom share a belief in the values of democracy, human rights, equality and the rule of law, and those are the values that we are talking about.

Graham Evans: I welcome the teaching of British history in our schools. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the police and security services are content with the new package of proposals?

Theresa May: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that confirmation. We have of course been talking to the police and the intelligence agencies about the issue, and there will be particular interaction with the police because a significant part of the Prevent money is spent by them. I will write to chief constables and others today to set out the new strategy.

Tristram Hunt: I am glad that the Home Secretary mentioned the extreme right wing. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have dealt with alleged terrorist conspiracies from both Islamic fundamentalists and far-right white fascists. I am also keen on her announcement of actions regarding the internet. Many young British Muslims are heading towards radicalisation via the teachings of Anwar al-Awlaki, gained over the internet. May I urge her to make the security services go on the front foot against some of the stuff that is coming over the internet?
	Finally, may I urge the Home Secretary to proceed with caution on defining British values? The history of Britain also involves the denial of democracy, the denial of the rule of law and the denial of equal rights in many nations around the world, and for Home Secretaries to define what is and is not Britishness is treacherous territory.

Mr Speaker: I am very impressed that the hon. Gentleman is still breathing.

Theresa May: I of course recognise the experience in Stoke-on-Trent, particularly over the past year, in relation to both terrorist plots of an Islamic nature and the influence and actions of the English Defence League. I would hope that everybody in the House believes in the values to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), namely democracy, the rule of law, equality and human rights. Those are the values that we wish to promote.

Rob Wilson: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement, and say what a breath of fresh air it was to hear some of the things that she said? As she knows, much of the threat to the UK comes via Pakistan. Can she explain how the Government are working with counter-terror agencies to deal with that specific threat?

Theresa May: We work closely with the Government of Pakistan on counter-terrorism matters, and I should put on record in the House, as I believe I have on previous occasions, that in fact the Pakistani people have suffered significant losses to terrorist attacks. Several thousand people have died in Pakistan in recent years as a result of such attacks, and we should never forget what is happening to people living there. Of course, there are considerable links between this country and Pakistan, and as I said, we work closely with the Pakistani Government in examining counter-terrorism issues.

Kate Hoey: I very much welcome the better targeting of our resources, but will the Home Secretary ensure that projects and schemes that are doing extremely well in inner cities, such as some around the mosque in Lambeth, are protected or at least not arbitrarily thrown away just to save money?

Theresa May: One aspect of the new strategy that we are adopting is a much closer evaluation of the work that is done, so that we can identify precisely the projects that are working well and should continue to be supported. At the same time, we will also identify groups that we feel it is no longer right for the Government to fund.

Peter Bone: I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House again to keep us informed. In Wellingborough prison, the imam is in charge of all the religious affairs. I am sure he is very good, but what checks are made in prisons to ensure that the imams there are not preaching extremism?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend’s question refers back, in a sense, to that asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). In considering how we deal with prisons, we will do much more work to examine exactly what is happening there. We will work with prison governors and staff and with the National Offender Management Service to get better information about what is happening in prisons, which is a key aspect of the strategy. We recognise that more work needs to be done.

Naomi Long: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. In disentangling the issues of trying to create more community cohesion and at the same time trying to deal with terrorism and radicalisation, how can we ensure that there is not a gap through which radicalised young people can emerge? How can we ensure that the policies co-exist and are complementary to each other, not in conflict?

Theresa May: As I indicated earlier, we will take steps to ensure that our policies are complementary across the Government. Importantly, I hope that the integration and community cohesion strategies will encourage people to be willing to identify those young people who they consider to be vulnerable to radicalisation, and who they feel need the support and action of the programmes that are available, to ensure that they do not go down the route to terrorism.

David Burrowes: The Home Secretary spoke of the values of our country. It is important to recognise the Christian heritage of those values, so will she recognise the failure of the previous strategy, which diminished the positive contribution of faith-based organisations and distorted their relationships with the Government? I welcome the announcement of the £5 million of near neighbours funding to enable churches to be involved in reaching out to all communities. That is a positive and welcome step.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point that it is important that the Government are willing to work with groups from all faiths, to ensure that we use the expertise and ability that faith groups have to reach out into their communities in a way that the Government cannot. As I said, it is important to do that across all faiths.

Denis MacShane: If I pointed out to the Home Secretary that before 1997, her Conservative predecessor, who was advised by the current Prime Minister, allowed into Britain no fewer than four times Sheikh Qaradawi, the theologian and ideologue of suicide bombing, she would just dismiss it as a political point. All Governments get some of their policies on such things wrong, and she should not have made such a partisan statement.
	On a specific point, the University and College Lecturers Union has just repudiated—at its congress last weekend—the EU’s definition of anti-Semitism. That is a highly
	retrograde step, because that working definition is accepted around the world. The union has given a green light to all those who want to encourage anti-Semitic thinking. Will the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary look into that?

Theresa May: As the right hon. Gentleman may have seen, an Education Minister is sitting on the Treasury Bench. He will have heard that point and I am sure he will raise it with the Education Secretary.

Sajid Javid: May I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement? Since the terrible bombings of July 2005, it is clear that in some cases self-appointed Islamist groups have used public funds to poison young Muslim minds. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make it absolutely clear that this Government will only work with and fund groups that accept the British way of life, our democracy and our values?

Theresa May: As I made clear in my statement, and as is made clear in the strategy, the Government will not work with or fund groups that hold extremist views.

James Morris: Does the Home Secretary agree that one key to this strategy is international co-operation with agencies in other countries, particularly in addressing the prevalence of propaganda on the internet? Sharing intelligence across agencies could well get to the source of that problem.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for again raising the internet, which was mentioned in an earlier question. It is important that we look at the use of the internet, and we can do so in a number of ways. The police could take action in relation to some of the
	things that are put on the internet here, but one of the key things is to work internationally, particularly with the US. Many internet providers are based there rather than here, and are therefore outside UK jurisdiction. We are doing more to talk to the US, and indeed to those companies directly about their responsibilities.

Rehman Chishti: As somebody with an Islamic background, I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. She has announced an excellent and proper way forward to deal with that bizarre, distorted ideology and to promote community cohesion. What representations, if any, have been made to the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan on reforming the madrassahs—the religious schools—which have often been a breeding ground for extremism?

Theresa May: I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that that was one of the issues that I discussed with the Pakistan Interior Minister when I visited that country last October.

Bob Blackman: One problem with the Prevent scheme funding under the previous Administration was the lack of clarity on what the funding was for and which organisations would receive it, and ensuring appropriate outcomes. Will my right hon. Friend ensure not only that a broad range of organisations receive funds, but that those organisations are outcome-based, so that we can clearly evaluate the success or otherwise of the funding?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not good enough for Governments simply to give money to organisations; we need to ensure that it is being effectively used for the purpose for which it was intended. That is why it is important that we establish much clearer evaluation and monitoring of the use of that money.

Kinship Carers (Parental Responsibility Agreements)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.  23 )

Kerry McCarthy: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision to extend the system of parental responsibility agreements to enable a kinship carer to obtain parental responsibility for a child they are raising without having to bring a case to court; and for connected purposes.
	There are an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children in the United Kingdom being raised by relatives or friends because their parents cannot look after them. Those children have often experienced tragedy or trauma due to the death or imprisonment of a parent, or to a parent’s alcohol or drug misuse or mental health problems. Sometimes, the parent has simply walked out on them. The Family Rights Group describes those carers and the children they care for as
	“the forgotten families of family policy—overlooked by service providers and government”.
	Most of those children are being raised by grandparents, but many are also being raised by older siblings, aunts and uncles, and even friends and neighbours or their parents’ ex-partners. Those carers step in when there is a crisis—an instinctive response to a vulnerable child needing to be taken under someone’s wing. It is a decision made without pausing to think about practical matters, such as what the legal arrangements will be or what sort of support might be needed. The children benefit hugely from remaining in family units. They feel loved, they maintain contact with family members and they have some much-needed stability in their lives.
	The aim of the Bill is to extend the system of parental responsibility agreements, which currently applies to step-parents under section 4 of the Children Act 1989, to allow close relatives to obtain parental responsibility for a child they are raising, with the consent of the parents who have parental responsibility, without having to go to court. It would apply only to those who are defined as a relative under section 105 of the Act: grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles or aunts, whether by full blood, half blood, marriage or civil partnership. It would therefore not apply to friends or to wider family carers such as cousins, to ensure that the arrangements remain distinct from private fostering arrangements, which require regular local authority checks set up as a result of the Victoria Climbié inquiry.
	The aim is to assist with those private, temporary arrangements, which are currently completely under the radar, and to enable kinship carers to be recognised by schools to authorise school trips; to register the child with a GP and to be entitled to make medical decisions on the child’s behalf; to apply for a passport; to assist with demonstrating that they are the primary carers with regard to accessing child benefit, child care vouchers, and so on; and to qualify to apply for parental leave and the right to request flexible working arrangements. To get parental responsibility, most kinship carers currently have to go to court to apply for special guardianship or a residence order. My proposal would minimise the huge disruption to family dynamics involved in bringing a case to court, enabling families to function during periods of crisis.
	I shall give the House a few examples. One grandmother told me that when her grandson needed injections at the doctors, they were turned away. With a parental responsibility agreement in place, she would have been in a position to sign for his injections there and then. Instead, they had the difficult job of trying to track down the mum and getting her consent. Grandparents who had raised their grandson from when he was a toddler told us that they would not go to court to apply for a residence or special guardianship order until the child was 10, because they feared that the court might not support their application and that they would lose him, possibly to adoption. They therefore did not have the legal authority to make key decisions—for example, to sign for him to go on school trips. Another woman has told me that she has looked after her six-year-old nephew for the past three and half years. She has been advised to go to court to apply for a legal order to get parental rights, as his birth mother is unlikely ever to be able to look after him again, but she cannot afford to pay the court costs. She is in full-time work, so she can get no help with those costs.
	This week is European prisoners’ children week, which makes this a good time also to be talking about the particular difficulties faced by families with a parent in prison. Every year, 160,000 children experience the imprisonment of a parent. Family carers play an important role in helping prisoners and their children to stay in touch during a sentence, which has been shown to be critical in preventing reoffending. Children in those circumstances are also at higher risk of becoming offenders themselves, and kinship carers play a vital role in supporting those vulnerable and often traumatised children. The problem is that, in those circumstances, carers are often reluctant to seek the help that they need from children’s services. They are often scared of state involvement, and especially fearful of social workers removing the children from them or criticising their ability to parent the child, even if that fear is unwarranted, as it is in the vast majority of cases.
	I would like to share with the House a couple of the many stories from carers at whom the Bill is particularly targeted. Angie has looked after her granddaughter for the past three years, since the child was just one year old. Her granddaughter’s father is in prison, and the child’s mother has just come through a home detox from heroin; she is now completely clean. Prior to Angie’s full-time involvement with her granddaughter, she looked after her most weekends and on some week nights. She says:
	“I have strong views on parents and children remaining as a family unit and if my daughter had lost control of her daughter, this would have had the reverse effect on her drug recovery and the bond between mum and daughter would simply have vanished. The consequence of this would be long term for the child. I am delighted that my daughter has had regular supervised contact with her own daughter. It has meant a lot and I am sure that is why she was eventually able to detox from all drug use and see her own daughter as needing a real mum”.
	Angie goes on to say:
	“I think this Bill would have helped me enormously. I have considered special guardianship but the court process would be too much for my daughter who sees this as ‘taking her daughter right from under her’. People in drug abuse situations do not have the foresight to see things clearly and this Act would have been an enormous help to us if it had been in force three years ago”.
	I have also been contacted by a woman who, for obvious reasons, wishes to remain anonymous. Her sister has mental health problems and is an alcoholic. The children’s father did not want residence, so the grandparents went to court, gained a residence order and took on caring for the children, but the grandparents’ health declined, and the children’s aunt and her partner have unofficially taken on care of the children. They do not have the money to go back through the courts to change the residence order arrangement. Also, they want to ensure that the new living arrangements are what the children want—a decision that they are unable to make until they have given it a go for a sustained period of time. I shall quote from the aunt’s e-mail:
	“My parents live 70 miles away, so sorting all the consent letters for school, activity clubs, etc., does become a pain. My nephew broke his leg recently and you can imagine the rigmarole when he had to undergo emergency medical treatment and neither my partner nor I were officially able to sign for treatment. My partner even had to lie about being official next of kin to the ward staff, in order to sleep overnight in hospital with him. We weren’t prepared to leave him alone, but if we’d been honest, that’s exactly what would have happened!”
	My proposal does not involve any spending commitment. In fact, it goes a little way towards supporting the carers who save the state the estimated £12 billion that it would cost if the children involved were in independent foster care. I am pleased that the last Labour Government produced draft family and friends care statutory guidance for local authorities just before the general election. That guidance has now been finalised, and requires that local authorities must have a family and friends care
	policy in place by 30 September this year, addressing all children in family and friends care, not only those in the care system.
	The Bill is backed by the Family Rights Group, the Fostering Network, the Grandparents’ Association, Grandparents Plus, the National Children’s Bureau, Action for Prisoners’ Families, the Who Cares? Trust, the Prison Advice and Care Trust, the Adolescent and Children’s Trust, and Mentor UK. I would particularly like to thank Cathy Ashley of the Family Rights Group for all her work on the Bill.
	I would like to finish by thanking Paul, a young man who is bringing up his six younger siblings after his mother walked out, and who had to battle the system for a year and see his brothers and sisters taken into care and put into foster homes before the courts accepted that he was the best person to look after them. It was hearing Paul recently on “Woman’s Hour”, speaking so articulately and passionately about his experience, that inspired me to take up this issue. He is an excellent role model for his younger siblings, and I wish his family all the best for the future.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Ordered,
	That Kerry McCarthy, Mr David Blunkett, Paul Goggins, Mrs Helen Grant, Kate Green, Andrew Gwynne, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Alan Johnson, Mr David Lammy, Lisa Nandy, Priti Patel and Mr Jamie Reed present the Bill.
	Kerry McCarthy accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 198).

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Second  Reading

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	There is no greater task for any Government than to protect their citizens, to uphold their values and to defend their way of life, but when we face such a significant threat from terrorism over so great a period it becomes even more important that the Government ensure that the protection of our citizens does not overshadow the freedoms of us all. That is why we reviewed counter-terrorism legislation and it is why we need this Bill. Let me be clear: I will do nothing that risks our national security or the safety of our citizens, but this Bill is necessary precisely because public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers.
	There is in this country a small number of people who pose a real threat to our citizens, but whom we cannot successfully prosecute or deport. Prosecution, conviction and prison will always be our priority because the right place for a terrorist is in a prison cell. Where successful prosecution or deportation is not possible, however, no responsible Government could allow dangerous individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities. Since becoming Home Secretary, I have made use of the control order powers available to me to stop terrorist activity and to place restrictions on such individuals on a number of occasions.

William Cash: I think that my right hon. Friend may have anticipated that I would have something to say. She refers to terrorists and I am sure she realises that what she is talking about in this context is suspected terrorists. Does she recognise that it is the fault of the Government and Parliament if judges are given too much scope in human rights matters? Why produce a Bill here at Westminster that fails to provide for due process and a fair trial according to the basic principles of British justice? The coalition is simply giving in to Lib-Dem pressure for this Bill to comply with the Human Rights Act and the European convention; and it has not even provided for a derogation from article 5.

Theresa May: I did indeed expect that, as my hon. Friend was in the Chamber, he might wish to raise certain matters. I am aware of his private Member’s Bill on the same issue. I have to tell him that I was not entirely clear from what he said whether he was in favour of more human rights or against more human rights. I see him leaping to his feet.

William Cash: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for walking into that one. I am very much in favour of human rights, but I am in favour of human rights according to principles of British justice, not those devised through the European convention and applied through the Human Rights Act, which has led to so many contradictions and inconsistencies and has raised so much concern among the public at large.

Theresa May: I hope my hon. Friend is grateful for the opportunity I gave him to clarify that particular point. I simply say in response to that and his comments about the judiciary that legislation is, of course, set by Parliament, but I believe that the relationship between politicians and the judiciary has changed as a result of the operation of the Human Rights Act. As a Government, we have set up a commission, which will report in due course, to look at the Human Rights Act and the possibility of introducing a Bill of Rights.
	I said that I felt the Bill was necessary because public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers. Protecting the British public will always be my top priority, but the current control orders regime is neither perfect nor entirely effective. I believe that the Bill will give us appropriate, proportionate and effective powers to deal with the risk posed by people we believe are involved in terrorist-related activity whom we can neither prosecute nor deport.
	Our approach is clear, consistent and coherent. We will repeal the control order regime and replace it with a more focused and targeted regime of terrorism prevention and investigation measures. We will then support the new measures with increased covert investigative resources. So this Bill starts by repealing the Act that provides the power to impose control orders on individuals: the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
	The Bill sets out the essential elements of the TPIM—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—regime that will replace control orders. It enables the Secretary of State to impose specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures on an individual by means of a TPIM notice. Unlike under the control order regime, the detail of the measures that will be able to be imposed will be specified in legislation and so will be specifically approved by the House. It is only right that it is Parliament, and not the Executive, that decides what types of measures may be imposed.
	The Bill establishes 12 types of measures that could be imposed as part of a TPIM notice. It also provides clear limits on the restrictions that may be imposed under each measure. These measures include: an overnight residence measure; a travel measure, mainly to prevent travel outside the United Kingdom; an exclusion measure to prevent individuals entering specified areas or places; a financial services measure; an electronic communication device measure; an association measure; a reporting measure and a monitoring measure.
	The overnight residence measure is not the same as the control order curfew requirement. Under control orders, curfews could last up to 16 hours and apply at any point in the day. Our intention is not to force individuals to remain in their homes during the day, when they might normally go out to work or study, but to ensure they are in their homes overnight, as most people normally would be. This will reduce the scope for involvement in terrorism-related activity and reduce the risk of absconding.
	The travel measure will allow the banning of overseas travel without permission. It will also allow the individual to be required to surrender their passport or travel documents. This measure is, I believe, absolutely vital to stop travel for terrorist training, for example.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has said that the overnight residence requirements are different from curfews and
	that she does not want to prevent people from going out in the evening. Why, then, did she apply for a control order that included a curfew between 5 pm in the evening and 9 am in the morning—a total curfew of 16 hours?

Theresa May: We are currently operating—and have been since the Government came to power—the control order regime that was put in place by the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That is the basis on which I am currently operating. The new regime that will be put in place—of terrorism prevention and investigation measures—is a package that includes not just the measures in the Bill, but, as the right hon. Lady knows, the extra resources for the security services and the police.

Yvette Cooper: But will the Home Secretary confirm that she has the power to specify how many hours a curfew should be for and that she has chosen to specify a curfew for 16 hours rather than for fewer hours?

Theresa May: I will not comment on a particular case, which the right hon. Lady appears to be trying to get me to do. What I will say is that under the current control order regime it is possible to specify the length of a curfew. As she will know, the length of curfew has been challenged—and challenged successfully—in the courts. What we are doing with TPIMs is taking a different approach to the issue. The TPIMs in the Bill are intended to ensure that we allow prevention of terrorism activity for national security requirements, while also ensuring that individuals can take part in what is regarded as normal activity, such as work or study.

Pete Wishart: Will not the Home Secretary simply accept that these TPIMs are nothing other than a repackaging and rebranding of the old, discredited control orders regime? Has she had a chance to look at the sheet produced by Liberty, which goes through measure by measure, showing how similar they are? Is it not the case that she is no better than Lord Reid when it comes to control orders?

Theresa May: We are introducing a new regime. We did what we undertook to do as a coalition Government when we came to power. Both parties were committed to reviewing the control order regime. We did that, and what we have decided is that the right balance between civil liberties and national security is reflected in the Bill. It will enable us to take action to prevent terrorist activity by that small number of people who, as I have said, we are unable to prosecute or deport, while at the same time re-striking the balance between national security and civil liberties. The financial services measures would allow individuals to be limited to one bank account, for which they would have to provide statements. Transfer of money and goods overseas without prior permission could also be prohibited. Under the association measure, a list of prohibited associates would be supplied to the individual in advance, with the possibility that notice would be required of meetings with other individuals. The reporting measure would require individuals to report to a particular police station at a particular time, and the monitoring measure would require them to
	co-operate with arrangements to monitor their movements, communications and other activities. That might include a requirement to wear an electronic tag.
	The Bill places clear limits on each of the restrictions that can be imposed. For example, it clearly provides no power for individuals to be relocated to another part of the country without their consent. The exclusion measure will allow only tightly defined exclusion from particular places such as named buildings and streets or defined locations. It will not allow exclusion from wide geographical areas. Exclusion will also be allowed from certain types of locations such as airports, ports or international railway stations. The need for such an exclusion should be obvious. As for restrictions involving electronic communication devices, the Bill makes it clear that the individual concerned must be allowed to own and use at least one fixed-line telephone, a computer and fixed-line internet connection and a mobile telephone. All that must of course be subject to specific conditions, such as the provision of passwords and phone numbers.
	The Bill also sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the Secretary of State may impose a TPIMs notice. A key change from the control order regime is that the Secretary of State must now reasonably believe, rather than reasonably suspect, that an individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. The Secretary of State must also reasonably consider that it is necessary to impose particular measures on an individual to protect the public and to restrict the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. That means that the package of measures will vary from case to case, which is only right given that all cases will be different.
	We are aware that TPIMs are a short-term tool to protect the public rather than a long-term solution. A person will be subject to a TPIMs notice for no more than two years in response to specific terrorist-related activity. The initial notice will be imposed for one year, and can be extended once if that is necessary to protect the public. If an individual engages in new terrorism-related activity, of course a new notice and new measures can be imposed with a further two-year time limit. A new notice could be imposed immediately if terrorism-related activity had occurred during the life of the TPIM, and a new TPIMs notice could be imposed after the original one had expired. That is an essential safeguard for our national security, ensuring that appropriate disruptive action can be taken if an individual re-engages in terrorism-related activity.
	As with the current regime, the courts will have to give permission for a TPIMs notice to be imposed. Only in the most exceptional and urgent cases will court permission not have been obtained before the imposition of a notice. If the court gives permission, a full review of the decision must begin automatically. There will be no requirement for the lodging of an appeal. The full review will be heard by a High Court judge. If the judge does not consider that the relevant conditions have been met, in relation to the notice as a whole or in relation to specific measures within it, the judge may quash the whole notice or specific measures as appropriate. Individuals will know enough of the case against them to enable them to instruct their own lawyer and the special advocate who will have access to all material, including sensitive material.

Naomi Long: The power to use control orders has always extended to Northern Ireland, but has never been used. What discussions has the Home Secretary had about the availability of special advocates in Northern Ireland? There are very few at present, and the imposition of TPIMs could present a problem.

Theresa May: One of the issues that we are examining is the more general issue of special advocates and the information available to them, but I take the hon. Lady’s point. As she says, the current regime is not being used in Northern Ireland, but we will be very aware of the issue of special advocates and their availability there. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—who is responsible for crime and security matters—is involved in wider Government work in relation to the availability of sensitive information in cases relating to terrorist activity.
	In practice, individuals subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures will know the key elements of the case against them, even if it is not possible for them to see all the underlying intelligence. Once a TPIMs notice has been imposed, there will be a further right of appeal against subsequent decisions—for example, decisions to extend or vary the terms of the notice. The package in the Bill will assure individuals subject to TPIMs notices of a significant and appropriate level of judicial oversight of their cases. As well as providing for rigorous consideration by the courts, the Bill contains a formal statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to keep under review whether a TPIMs notice, and all its restrictions, remains necessary to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. That will remove any doubt about whether such notices are assessed to ensure that they remain necessary at all times.
	The Bill provides a number of further safeguards. The Secretary of State will be required to make a quarterly report to Parliament on the exercise of the powers in the Bill. That mirrors the current practice in relation to control orders, and will ensure appropriate visibility, and public accountability, of the TPIMs regime. The Secretary of State must also appoint an independent person to review the operation of the enacted legislation. That, too, mirrors the current control order regime.
	As the House will know, David Anderson QC recently took on the role of independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, which was previously undertaken so effectively and for so many years by Lord Carlile of Berriew. As independent reviewer, David Anderson would undertake the statutory reviews of the TPIMs legislation, just as he currently reviews control order powers.
	The final part of the Bill relates to enforcement. It provides for a criminal offence of breaching measures specified in a TPIM notice without reasonable excuse. The maximum penalty will be five years’ imprisonment. The Bill also contains detailed provisions relating to powers of search and entry, which build on the existing powers relating to control orders. There will be an explicit power for the police to undertake a search for compliance purposes—for example, to check that the individual has no prohibited communications devices—but they will be required to obtain a warrant first.
	The final part of our approach is to combine the new preventive measures with significantly increased resources for the police and the Security Service, over and above
	those agreed in the spending review, to help with investigation and prosecution. For security reasons I cannot give the House a full breakdown of the funds provided for specific security activities, but I can reassure Members that this is new money that has not been taken from any existing counter-terrorism programmes. These additional investigative capabilities and resources will help the police and MI5 to gather evidence with a view, as always, to prosecution. The commitment to prosecution is also reflected in clause 10, which requires prior consultation with the police on whether evidence is available that could realistically be used for prosecution in relation to a terrorist offence. It also requires the police to keep the individual's conduct under review while a TPIMs notice is in force, and to report to the Home Secretary on that review.
	I have discussed the new arrangements in detail with Jonathan Evans, the director general of the Security Service. He has told me that he considers that the changes provide an acceptable balance between the needs of security and those of civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates risk.
	The Bill is a vital part of the Government's new, more effective and more proportionate approach to counter-terrorism. This afternoon I announced to the House a new and more effective strategy for countering radicalisation; the Bill is, perhaps, as important as that new strategy in restoring trust in Britain's approach to counter-terrorism. The repeal of control orders, their replacement with TPIMs, and extra resources for covert surveillance and investigation constitute the right approach. It is an approach that is necessary and proportionate, that will do a great deal to protect the public from the risk of terrorism, and that deserves support from all parties. I commend the Bill to the House.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary barely had time to draw breath between statement and debate, but that transition exposes again the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and reality in regard to counter-terrorism. On a day on which the Home Secretary has launched her review of the strategy to prevent terrorism, with tough talk about clamping down, she is simultaneously watering down measures proven to prevent terrorist activity.
	The fact is that, for the most part, the Bill is a confusion and a con. It does not do what it says on the tin, and it does not fulfil the grand promises made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. In 27 clauses, it takes us in a circle and—almost—back to where we started. However, in a few areas it does make changes, and some of them are worrying.

Julian Huppert: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that Labour party policy favours a more authoritarian version of this Bill?

Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman persists with such simplistic soundbites, he will misunderstand the nature of the terrorist threat to Britain, and also the nature of the Bill that he is supporting, because this Bill represents a complete reversal of the promises he and his party made during the election, and does not abolish the control orders regime but simply renames it with a few minor amendments.
	We on the Opposition Benches do not have access to the latest security assessments from the experts. We believe it is important to support the Government on counter-terrorism issues where we can, but in order to do so we will need more reassurances from the Home Secretary, and also some changes. The first duty of any Government is the protection of the people and the safeguarding of national security, yet the Home Secretary’s changes currently make it harder for the police and security services to limit the actions of a small number of dangerous people. We therefore need more reassurances on that.
	Ideally, we would not have control orders because, ideally, we would not need them, but the Labour Government introduced them because we recognised that we needed to deal with a very small number of difficult cases, where prosecution was not possible for a range of reasons and where the public still needed to be protected from terrorist activity. In opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives condemned control orders, but now they are in government they have changed their minds. Indeed, the Home Secretary has introduced six new control orders since she came to office, and renewed eight more, but rather than admit that, she is desperate to maintain the fiction that control orders need to be replaced by something fundamentally different and that this Bill does the trick.
	Most of the Bill is a fudge, drawn up to meet promises made to the Deputy Prime Minister that control orders would be abolished. Clause 1 does exactly that, but clauses 2 to 27 just reinstate most of the elements of control orders. The Bill does not therefore meet the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto promise to scrap orders that use evidence in closed sessions of court, nor does it meet the Conservative pledge of
	“eliminating the control order regime.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 2010; Vol. 717, c. 1530.]
	It certainly does not meet the grand claims of the Deputy Prime Minister in January, when The Sunday Times was briefed that he had
	“won his Cabinet fight to scrap control orders”,
	that suspects will no longer have to wear electronic tags or have a home curfew, and that they
	“will also be allowed to travel wherever they want in Britain”.
	As all Members now know, the Bill allows for tags, home curfews and restrictions on travel around Britain. Where control orders use closed proceedings and special advocates, so too do TPIMs. Where control orders are instigated by the Home Secretary with the permission of the High Court, so too are TPIMs. Where control orders are used when prosecution is not possible, so too are TPIMs. Where control orders can restrict people’s movements, communication, association, travel and bank accounts, so too can TPIMs.
	Let me read out some extracts from the Government’s own explanatory notes to the Bill. Clause 1 abolishes control orders, and clauses 2 to 4 introduce TPIMs. On clauses 6 to 9 and schedule 2, the notes say:
	“This replicates the position in relation to control orders”.
	On clause 10, they say:
	“The clause maintains all the existing requirements contained in the 2005 Act.”
	On clauses 12 to 15 and schedule 3, they say:
	“The clauses make provision—equivalent to that in the 2005 Act in relation to control orders”.
	On clauses 16 to 18 and schedule 4, they say:
	“This provides similar rights of appeal to those that exist in relation to control orders.”
	They say that clauses 19 to 20
	“place requirements—equivalent to those contained in the 2005 Act in relation to control orders”.
	On clause 21, they say that
	“this effectively recreates the main offence of the 2005 Act of contravening an obligation imposed under a control order”—
	and they then add, in brackets—
	“(including the same maximum penalty)”.
	This Bill is one big set of square brackets which reads: insert control orders here.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: there is almost no difference between TPIMs and the former control order regime. What is the Labour party’s position on this? Would she amend control orders to make them more in line with her party’s new view on civil liberties? Indeed, what is the Labour party’s view on civil liberties? Were control orders a step too far? Will she now come on our side and start to take on the anti-civil libertarian state that Labour created?

Yvette Cooper: As I said earlier, control orders are not ideal, and ideally we would not need them, but we do. We need to continue with control orders and this kind of protection.
	I will set out my view of the Bill’s measures and where we think greater scrutiny is needed, and highlight the reduction in safeguards and checks and balances that the Home Secretary is introducing, because the point is not simply that she is weakening the powers of the police and security forces in certain areas, but that she is weakening the checks and balances, and in particular the parliamentary checks and balances, on the system that is in place. Those parliamentary checks and balances are extremely important for safeguarding our civil liberties, as well as for protecting national security.

Tom Brake: I rise in search of some clarity on where the right hon. Lady stands. She seems to be saying on the one hand that TPIMs are simply recreating what existed under control orders, but on the other hand that what the Government are doing is making the situation much more dangerous, but it cannot be both.

Yvette Cooper: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listens more closely to what I am saying. The overall approach of the Government’s Bill, which he should read, is to reinstate most of the elements of control orders. I agree however—and I have said this clearly—that the Home Secretary is changing control orders in a series of ways, and I will address them shortly as they are significant. Some of them are justified, but others create risks, and changes will need to be made.
	Overall, the Government should admit what they are doing. This is a cut-and-paste job. In place of control orders, all we have is “son of control orders”. It is irresponsible to maintain this pretence. That is not being straight with Parliament or the public on an issue
	of grave importance: how we safeguard our national security and our civil liberties. Debates on matters such as these should be open, transparent and considered, not fudged, fraudulent and confused. This is an area where Governments need to maintain the trust and confidence of the public, but we do not achieve that by playing these kinds of political games.
	This is also a very strange use of parliamentary time. There are some limited and specific differences between control orders and “son of control orders” that I am not concerned about, but, frankly, the Home Secretary could have achieved them with about four clauses amending the 2005 Act which could have been debated as part of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. She could have covered the issues of relocation, the length of the curfew and access to phones through amendments to an existing Act. She did not need an entirely new piece of legislation to abolish control orders and then reintroduce them under another name.
	Why are we not doing that? Why do we have an entire additional Bill with 27 more clauses, all redrafted, doing the same thing? Why are we here today? The answer is because the Home Secretary has lost yet another battle with her Cabinet colleagues on her policy areas, so she is forced to go through this charade of entirely new legislation; and because, once again, the Government are putting politics before good policy.
	As I have made clear, some of the changes to the control orders are limited. We can support some of them, but some are very troubling. The first change is to move the burden of proof from “reasonable suspicion” to “reasonable belief”. We understand that the view of the experts is that none of the control orders that have been upheld would have failed that higher standard, and that this will not make a significant difference to the serious cases they worry about. We believe it is right to follow the evidence, and we are happy to support this change on that basis.
	The second change is to alter the wording in respect of the hours. That is a bit of a joke. In place of curfews, we have a reference to overnight residence requirements, but what is the difference? The online “Oxford English Dictionary” definition of a curfew is
	“a regulation requiring people to remain indoors during specified hours, typically at night.”
	It is, therefore, a requirement to stay in one’s residence overnight, or, as one might say, an overnight residence requirement. The Deputy Prime Minister made great play of the fact that people would be restricted for fewer hours under TPIMs than under control orders, but that is not what the Bill actually says. In fact, there is no specified limit on the number of hours someone has to stay at home. All the Bill says is “overnight”.
	Let us turn again to the OED for illumination about what that should ordinarily mean. Overnight means
	“for the duration of a night”,
	and night means
	“the period from sunset to sunrise.”
	So does the Home Secretary intend TPIMs to apply for the hours of darkness? Does she want them to be longer in winter than in summer, and longer in the north than in the south? Does she want them potentially to be used to prevent evening activities and meetings, or only to require people to sleep in their own beds? If she does not think TPIMs should be used to prevent evening
	meetings or people going out after dark when surveillance is much more difficult, is she confident that this will not increase the risks to the public, or make it harder for the security services and police to do their jobs?
	I asked the Home Secretary this during her speech, but how does this fit with her own decisions? A number of the 14 orders she has made or renewed since she took office include curfews, several of more than 12 hours. A recent one runs from 5 pm to 9 am—it is summer, so does that count as “overnight”? She can refuse to answer all these questions, but if she does not answer them, the courts will. Her definition just invites legal challenge or judicial review and, for the sake of the Government’s legal bill alone, she should tighten it up.
	Thirdly, the Home Secretary has replaced an inexhaustive list of restrictions with an exhaustive list to choose from. We will ask in Committee whether or not any case, historical or current, would have been affected by this change. Fourthly, she and the Deputy Prime Minister have said that the new Bill would prevent relocation. This matter does raise some significant concerns. Preventing people from entering an entire area, or requiring them to live somewhere else, is, in general, deeply undesirable. However, many experts have concluded that in certain limited circumstances it is extremely important and can be justified. Indeed, police officers have told me that relocation can, in some exceptional circumstances, be the most effective way to disrupt terrorist activity and break someone out of a network of dangerous contacts and associations.
	The Home Secretary must think that too, because in February she imposed a control order on a suspect that banned them from entering London and less than one month ago her lawyers defended those restrictions in the High Court. I have gone through the Court papers for this case, which, like so many, is extremely serious. The individual on the order, who is known as CD, was suspected of planning forthcoming attacks using firearms in London. The Court was told that he was attending regular meetings with associates in this city to plan an attack and had previously travelled to Syria for what was alleged to be extremist training. The assessment of the security services and the Home Secretary was that it was necessary to relocate CD outside Greater London to prevent him from having these meetings and co-ordinating an attack—that is what they argued in Court just last month. The High Court judge concluded that the relocation obligation is
	“a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist-related attack.”
	All this happened just last month, so the House needs to consider why we are seeking to introduce a change to control orders that would remove a function that the Home Secretary believed, and the High Court agreed, was needed for national security only one month ago?
	Fifthly, the Home Secretary is restricting individual TPIMs to two years. Control orders could be renewed repeatedly, and she has not explained what will happen to the two people currently on control orders for more than two years once this Bill comes into force. Will they transfer to TPIMs or will the Home Secretary have to apply to the courts all over again? Sixthly, she is permitting access to phones and computers. She has assured the House that that will be monitored, but we will seek assurances from the monitoring agencies as to whether
	sufficient safeguards are in place and whether they have the resources to manage the continued monitoring that will be involved.
	A wider question is being raised because these changes—the potentially reduced hours for curfews; a potentially narrower list of restrictions; more association with others who may be causing trouble; and the greater use of phone and internet—all require greater surveillance and resources to fill the gap. The Home Secretary has refused to confirm a figure, but the figure of £20 million has been routinely used in the newspapers and, presumably, has been briefed from her Department. Yet the overall police budget is being cut by £2 billion, the police counter-terrorism budget is still being cut in real terms and experienced counter-terrorism officers are being laid off through the A19 process.
	I am concerned that the Home Secretary knows that there are troubling gaps in her plans. She has said that
	“in exceptional circumstances, faced with a very serious terrorist threat that we cannot manage by any other means, additional measures may be necessary…So we will publish, but not introduce, legislation allowing more stringent measures, including curfews and further restrictions on communications, association and movement…We will invite the Opposition to discuss this draft legislation with us on Privy Council terms.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 309.]
	What “additional measures” are these, given that control orders are pretty far-reaching? Does this mean that she knows already that there is a potential gap in security as a result of the new TPIMs? The Home Secretary has said she would consult the Opposition about these plans, but she has not yet done so. If new emergency legislation is needed to fill the gaps her own Bill creates, Parliament needs to know about this before we get to the evidence and Committee stage; otherwise we will be debating the Bill under false pretences, legislating only to legislate again.
	This Bill is a con, recreating most of control orders while pretending not to do so, and it is risky, as some elements and changes water down the protection for national security, but there is a third problem: the Bill also reduces, rather than increases, parliamentary checks and balances on the Home Secretary. As I have said, the right approach to take to ensure that we protect civil liberties and national security together is to support strong powers for the police and security services to act in difficult circumstances, and to make sure that there are strong checks and balances to prevent abuse.
	The current checks and balances on control orders are both judicial and parliamentary: the High Court has to approve every control order but Parliament has to give its approval every year for the control order regime to remain in place. Democratically elected MPs have to decide every year whether the terrorism threat remains sufficiently severe, whether anyone has come up with a better alternative and whether to allow the Home Secretary to continue to use these exceptional powers. That is an important parliamentary check on the exercise of Executive power which should continue to be unusual, yet she is removing it in this Bill. The power of the Home Secretary to impose TPIMs under this Bill is not a temporary one—it is permanent. TPIMs do not have to be renewed annually, as control orders do, and the TPIMs regime does not have to be renewed
	annually, as the control order regime does. This is therefore a serious downgrading of parliamentary oversight of a regime which is always supposed to be exceptional. She will know that serious concerns have been raised about this by Liberty, Justice and others, who say that far from representing a positive innovation, the TPIMs regime is, in one crucial respect, more offensive than the system it is designed to replace.
	The Home Secretary is now in the astonishing situation of pleasing no one. She has a Bill that fudges the issue and does not fundamentally change the control order regime in the way that she and others promised its critics. However, it does water down some measures, worrying those who monitor national security, and it waters down the checks and balances that allow Parliament to prevent abuse, and that should worry this House.
	The Opposition have very serious reservations about this Bill. Where possible, we want to support the Government on counter-terrorism. That is made more difficult when neither we nor the Intelligence and Security Committee have access to more detail about the risks in individual cases that would allow us to be reassured that the Home Secretary’s judgments are right. We believe that it would have been better not to introduce this Bill at all. We believe that it is, in the main, unnecessary, that it includes elements that take risks and that it reduces accountability to Parliament. Now that the Government have introduced it, we believe that it needs a serious rethink in Committee. We will not vote against Second Reading tonight, but we will expect greater transparency on these measures, more answers to the questions we have posed and significant changes to be made to the Bill to reassure us about our concerns. Counter-terrorism is too important for us to take risks for the sake of political expediency. The Home Secretary should forget deals done to save face for the Deputy Prime Minister—it is beyond saving—and she should ignore the demands for short-term headlines from the Prime Minister, as in the longer term she has to carry the can.

Kris Hopkins: I want to concentrate on the impact of terrorism and anti-terrorism law on the relationship between the Muslim community and the non-Muslim community and between the Muslim community and the state. The Bill needs to be understood in the context of the Prevent agenda that was mentioned earlier, the relationship between the Muslim community and the police, the work of the security forces and international events, interventions and identity. There must be a question about what incited young British Muslim men to blow themselves up in British streets.
	Perhaps it is right that we should look right at the root of some of those issues and ask whether people feel that they are British, whether we make them feel British and what it is to be British. In July 2001, I watched out of the windows of Bradford city hall as hundreds of mainly young British Muslim men ran through the streets of Bradford while mounted police and young, brave police officers fought to try to protect the city. More than 300 police officers were injured, £20 million-worth of damage was done to the city and its reputation was severely damaged. That action was undertaken by mindless idiots. It was not about race—it was not a race riot—but about thuggery.
	It was interesting—these events were appreciated and understood by the community—that a few days later the local newspaper published the mugshots of some of the participants and the parents and family members brought those young men down to the police station and started the process of convicting them. That was a harmonious event among all the destruction and upheaval that was running through the community.
	Later that year, in September, a meeting of the council’s executive, of which I was a part at the time, was stopped and adjourned while we watched the second plane go into the twin towers. Those shocking events made the city reel. Our city was already uneasy with itself and braced itself for further fallout. The tension and suspicion were evident in the pub and the street and when one talked to friends; racists had a field day. What the terrorists wanted had happened and people were frightened. After the Iraq invasion, seen by many in the district as illegal, the dividing line with the Muslim community appeared even greater, so the community, led by the council and other agencies, set about mending bridges. Indeed, bridges were often created for the first time. For five years, there were school exchanges, people were brought together and cross-community sports were promoted. Areas were created where people could talk openly, speak honestly and speak their mind about issues, challenging each other. We were not naive about where we got to in that process, but it was important in building relationships.
	The day after it was announced that London had won the Olympic games, four men, one originally from Bradford, blew themselves up and murdered many innocent people. That evening, all the main agencies met at the university, which then and since has played a huge role in promoting cohesion in the district. They were brought together to talk, to try and reassure each other and to ensure that we resolved that individual psychopaths would not damage our city further. Our resolve to work together was stronger than that.
	In the days that followed, time and time again Muslim people came up to me and told me of their disgust at what had happened. Let me exemplify the feeling of fear. A couple of days after 7/7, an elderly friend of my mother’s was crying as she got off the bus. A young Muslim man—completely innocent—was carrying a rucksack on the bus and she feared that she would die as a consequence. A whole set of tensions, fears, contradictions and events ran through the community as a consequence of those terrorist activities.
	We need strong anti-terror laws, but they need to be owned by all the community. Many innocent citizens feel that the existing laws are somebody else’s and we need to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes. As I outlined in my introduction, communities respond, adapt, learn and survive in the face of terrible events and today the Muslim community in my town is not listening to this debate—those people are getting on with their lives, like the rest of the community.
	When I talk to people from the Muslim community, I hear that they feel battered. It is always the wider Muslim community—I know that is a generic term to use—that feels pursued. Good people who have no hatred in their hearts are looked on with suspicion by others and have been subjected to some of the knee-jerk reactions. I agree that it was difficult to start the Prevent agenda with a blank piece of paper and although I was
	extremely critical of it, I take it in good faith that it had to be started somewhere. The idea behind national indicator 35, which planned to map a specific community, had a huge impact and was seen as a hugely derogatory gesture.
	I have seen reports in the paper that doctors will be asked to report if they spot somebody who is acting suspiciously. My chief executive was brought to London and was told that the binmen had to look out for bombs and devices. Good-minded, good individuals, if they spot a bomb, a device or something suspicious, do not need the Government to ask them to pick the phone up and tell somebody. They do it because they are good citizens of this country.
	In conclusion, any anti-terror law must protect its citizens from ideological psychopaths who threaten to destroy society and the values that define it. One fundamental problem, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, is that there are differences in certain values to do with such issues as equality, human rights and corruption. The Government have the difficulty of achieving a balance between ensuring safety and not alienating communities from one another. The aim of a coherent society cannot be achieved to the detriment of one part of that society.
	People can seek to integrate, respect each other and even to develop shared ownership of important laws such as the one we are talking about today without compromising their principles. I want the Muslim community to feel safe, to be successful and to play a full part in British society and this Bill must be made law to help and to enable and not to hamper that aim.

Paul Goggins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who, early in his speech, mentioned the 9/11 attacks. In three months, we will mark 10 years since those horrific attacks took place in America. At that time, I undertook the role that is now undertaken by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson); I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). Over the following nine years, in that role and as a Minister in the Home Office and then the Northern Ireland Office, I worked closely with successive Home Secretaries and other Ministers who were seeking to deal with the deadly threat that was emerging from international terrorism. There was no book on the bookshelf entitled, “Rules of Engagement with al-Qaeda”, but I saw every one of those Ministers make every effort to defend the people of this country against new forms of international terrorism, including the dreadful prospect referred to by the hon. Member for Keighley of the so-called home-grown terrorists who are prepared to blow themselves up as well as their victims.
	The debate that has gone on since 9/11 has created great tensions in the Chamber and outside it as we have tried to balance and rebalance the equation between individual liberty and collective security. The previous Government received much criticism for the measures they brought forward but I believe that, without exception, the Ministers who introduced those measures did so with total integrity. The current Home Secretary also displays that integrity and she has my full support in taking the difficult decisions that she has to take about specific individuals.

Jeremy Corbyn: In my right hon. Friend’s years in the Home Office, in which he must have been involved in many discussions about anti-terrorism legislation, how much consideration was given to the implementation of the criminal law in open court rather than the creation of a series of special courts, special measures and all the suspicion that surrounds them?

Paul Goggins: Considerable consideration was always given to those issues. As the Home Secretary said earlier, prosecutions should always be brought where possible. Those who engage in terrorist activity should feel the full force of the law and where possible—where the evidence is there—they should be convicted and go to prison for a very long time. The problem is that sometimes the evidence and information that the Home Secretary and other Ministers have is not enough to secure a prosecution because much of it is protected or secret information that could not, of itself, sustain a successful prosecution. That is the territory we are dealing with, but I assure my hon. Friend that that consideration was always at the foremost of Minister’s minds at that time.

David Winnick: I have the highest respect for the work that my right hon. Friend undertook during his time at the Home Office. I have tried to get a parliamentary answer to my question, but I did not get anywhere. I understand that no one who has been subject to a control order has later been charged with a terrorist offence. That seems rather odd and, if I may say so, rather disturbing.

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend has well-known views on this issue and has expressed them frequently in the Chamber from both the Government and Opposition sides over the years. He forms his own conclusions but my conclusions about such individuals is that they are a small group of people for whom it is necessary to have some form of control outside the normal judicial process because of the risks that they pose. My hon. Friend has put forward his point of view on this before and he has strong views—I respect that.

Naomi Long: The right hon. Gentleman’s experience in Northern Ireland will also colour his view on these issues. One of the experiences that we had is that the use of unusual measures can often act as a rallying point for radicalising other young people, rallying them behind the cause, because people are seen as being persecuted rather than being tried under the law. Does he agree that such experiences show that these measures should be seen as unusual and that, for this reason, their ratification each year in Parliament is an important part of reinforcing that?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Lady speaks with great authority on this issue and I agree with every word she says. These powers—whether the control order powers that have been in place up to now or the new powers that the Home Secretary is bringing forward—should be used absolutely exceptionally and we should always bear in mind the risk that the hon. Lady mentions that their use can become a rallying point and can assist in the radicalisation of people whom we are trying desperately to keep in the mainstream of society. That should always be kept in mind. These powers should not be used generally; they are very specific powers to be used in very specific circumstances.
	Let me deal with the circumstances in which the powers should be used. We are talking about a small group of individuals who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities and who are either foreign nationals who cannot be deported because of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights or they are individuals who cannot be prosecuted successfully because, as I said earlier, the compelling information about them is secret intelligence that could not alone sustain a successful prosecution. Over the past six years, control orders have been the best—some have used the expression “least worst”—set of powers to deal with that group of people.
	As I have said before, we should always seek to gain consensus in the House on the important issue of counter-terrorism. The formation of the new Government last year gave us all an opportunity to reflect on the previous decade and see whether changes were required that would bring greater consensus and get an even better balance between individual liberty and collective security. I have changed my mind about pre-charge detention, having previously voted for 28 days and, indeed, for 42 days. I agree that the normal maximum should now be 14 days, provided that in exceptional circumstances it can be extended to 28 days. I am currently serving on the Joint Committee that is considering the emergency legislation that the Government have brought forward on this, and I have changed my mind on this issue.

David Winnick: Did I persuade you?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is always very persuasive—one way or the other.
	One area of policy on which I remain absolutely clear is the need to be able to control the activities of that small group of people who pose a serious threat and who cannot be deported or imprisoned, and I am pleased that the Government appear to have come to the same conclusion. We should seek consensus. There is much in the Bill that I can readily support. Conditions A to E, which are set out in clause 3, are welcome. They confirm the need for these TPIM notices to be focused on protection and prevention and they provide that the terrorism-related activity must be new activity. However, it is important that when a first application for a notice is made, that new activity can well predate the application.
	A general time limit of two years is not unreasonable given the provisos that further notices can be made if there is new activity and that where a further notice is made, the older activity can be taken into account in addition to the new activity of which the Home Secretary has become aware. However, I caution her and her ministerial colleague against making that a general rule which can never be excepted. As I said about the maximum pre-charge detention period of 14 days, there might be exceptional circumstances. I hope that the Minister will be prepared, in Committee, to see whether some amendments can be framed to allow extensions beyond two years in specific and exceptional circumstances.
	On making the powers permanent, I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said about that reducing parliamentary oversight, but we could also see it as a positive development if Parliament can reach a consensus and settled view. Given the constant arguing and bickering on this issue year after year when we should be seeking
	consensus in the face of the terrible threats that terrorists bring, there is some merit in Parliament’s reaching a settled view. There is a balance to be struck.
	I agree strongly with condition A, that the Secretary of State must have a reasonable belief
	“that the individual is…involved in terrorism-related activity”.
	That is a higher threshold than the reasonable suspicion threshold that has previously operated for control orders, but in reaching my conclusion I have referred to the opinion of Lord Carlile in his most recent report that the higher threshold of reasonable belief was, in practice, always achieved anyway for each control order that was taken out under the existing system. It is a standard that was already being met, and I see no problem in including that formally in legislation.
	It is right, given that we have six years’ experience of operating control orders, to set out in more precise form the measures that can be imposed as part of the new TPIM notices. Schedule 1 includes a list of measures, including accommodation, travel, communications, association and so on. I urge the Minister to see whether there ought not to be a catch-all power, because there may be a condition that is not caught by schedule 1. It might be sensible to leave an opening so that the Home Secretary can impose such a condition if circumstances allow. It is not a power that I would expect to be used frequently, but if we do not have that power, and unusual circumstances occur, there is nothing we can do about it. Perhaps that is something that could be considered.
	I have four serious difficulties with the Bill and in relation to other pertinent issues. The first was mentioned by my right hon. Friend—the overnight residence measure. She was right to point out that in schedule 1, which says that the Secretary of State may impose a requirement
	“applicable overnight…for the individual to remain at a specified residence”,
	there is no definition of “overnight”. It may be possible to go into that in Committee to see whether it is possible to include something a little clearer.
	The really important issue is the specified residence itself. My right hon. Friend made a powerful argument in relation to that. Paragraph 1(3) says that the specified residence must be
	“premises that are the individual’s own residence, or…other premises…that are situated in an appropriate locality or an agreed locality.”
	An appropriate locality is one in which the individual has a pre-existing connection. In the case of CD, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, it would not be possible under the new legislation for the Home Secretary to impose the conditions that she rightly imposed on the control order governing that individual. If it is possible, I would welcome an explanation on that from the Minister in his winding-up speech.
	Let us reflect on who CD is: a leading figure in a close group of Islamist extremists based in north London. That conspiracy of individuals was planning attacks and seeking to acquire weapons. He was a real threat, and the Home Secretary was quite right to take action, and to insist that he live in the west midlands. It is not just me who says so, as Mr Justice Simon supports her view. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear when reading from paragraph 53 of Mr Justice Simon’s judgment that the relocation obligation is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from an
	immediate and real risk of a terrorism-related attack. The Bill as drafted would not allow the Home Secretary to force that individual to live outside London in the west midlands, and the people of London and elsewhere would be at much greater risk if she could not do so.
	My second concern relates to electronic communication, which is dealt with in paragraph 7. Sub-paragraph (1) sounds quite tough, as the Secretary of State may impose
	“restrictions on the individual’s possession or use of electronic communication devices”.
	However, under sub-paragraph (3), each suspect may have
	“a telephone operated by connection to a fixed line…a computer that provides access to the internet…a mobile telephone that does not provide access to the internet.”
	To be honest, I am concerned that that demonstrates naivety about the sophisticated operations of international terrorists. They use multiple mobile phones, and will run rings round the measure, unless paragraph 7 is toughened up and made much more specific and much less confusing. There is a real job of work to be done by the Committee.

Julian Huppert: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one purpose of the measure is to enable more evidence to be gathered for prosecution? The point of allowing people to have that communication is partly for the sake of civil liberties but partly because it can be monitored. What we want to see is prosecution, not indefinite or even two-year detentions.

Paul Goggins: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that an international terrorist is sitting there thinking, “Thank goodness they have given me the internet so I can reveal all my contacts and conspiracies,” he is quite naive. We are talking about highly sophisticated people, and I am concerned that the provisions in paragraph 7(3) are not as sophisticated as they need to be to deal with the threat.

Tom Brake: The right hon. Gentleman has said that international terrorists are not going to use their internet access, because they will not want to reveal their deals, so what is the problem with providing internet access in the first place?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was saying that international terrorists would rush off and use it and reveal all their sources and contacts to the authorities monitoring the measure. I shall make the point again: I do not think that the provisions as set out reflect the sophistication with which international terrorists operate.
	My third difficulty relates not to the Bill but to a wider issue that is significant to the powers in the Bill—the whole business of rules on the disclosure of evidence. I welcome the fact that under the Bill there will still be closed hearings which can continue as before under control orders. That is needed, because if a judge is going to review the material or hear an appeal from a particular individual, he must consider the information available to the Home Secretary when she made the initial application. If some, if not all, of that information has to be protected, that must be done in a closed hearing. Special advocates will still be needed. The gist of the case must be provided to the individual.
	As we recognise, however, the AF judgment makes it increasingly difficult to protect what in the interests of public safety and national security must remain secret information. That issue caused problems for the previous Government, and it has caused problems for this Government. It has ramifications for our relations with international partners with whom we share important information and intelligence. I applaud the fact that the Government are seeking to address that problem and deal with it in the Green Paper. May I tell all Front Benchers that we should do everything we can to resolve the issue, because if we do not do so the TPIM system will simply not work, as there will be an ever stronger demand that information that should remain secret is revealed in open court to the individual concerned? It is important that we resolve that issue so that we know what can be disclosed and what can be protected.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he not accept that there is a major concern about anti-terrorism legislation with special courts and special advocates, and in which information is withheld from the defendant? The barrister acting on behalf of the defendant is not allowed to reveal to them the nature of the evidence or the case against them. Therein lies a road to something very, very dangerous in a democracy that prides itself on open prosecutions and open justice, and thereby a much wider acceptance of the judicial system and the rule of law.

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend again makes his point with great care. Of course, these are exceptional powers that should be used sparingly. We have all this apparatus in relation to control orders to ensure that the suspect’s interests can be protected. That is why we have special advocates who can consider the information and argue on behalf of the suspect. [ Interruption. ] Does the hon. Member for Cambridge wish to intervene?

Julian Huppert: I should be delighted to do so, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The problem is that the special advocate is not allowed to communicate the nature of that evidence to the person involved. That fundamentally means that they cannot advocate fairly on behalf of their client.

Paul Goggins: It is true that special advocates cannot share the intelligence directly, but they are there to represent the interests of the individual. To the hon. Gentleman, that might not be a perfect solution, but it is better that the individual has somebody to speak for them than nobody to speak for them. That is why that system was introduced.
	I say again to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who put his point very fairly, that these are exceptional mechanisms to assist in making sure that the rights and interests of the individual are protected, but in the end, the entire Bill is designed to ensure that the rest of us are protected against the threats that those individuals pose. We must not forget that. As we have these debates about the liberty of the individual, we must balance that against the need for the protection of the wider public. That is the dilemma that goes right through the debate. We should never lose sight of one or the other side of that argument.
	My final point is whether the whole new TPIM system represents the same level of risk as we had with control orders or a greater level of risk. I can only assume that the Home Secretary believes there is an increased risk from the new TPIM system, otherwise why would she be committing a serious level of resource—whatever that level is—to the police and the Security Service to help them deal with the additional work and the additional pressures that will result from the new system?
	I was somewhat concerned to hear the Home Secretary quote Jonathan Evans as saying that the additional money would—I think she said—mitigate against the additional risk. That is an interesting phrase worthy of further exploration. I am extremely concerned that new gaps will open up. The question is whether there will be sufficient resource to fill those gaps and whether those gaps will pose an additional risk. No one in the House should be complacent about the possibility of an increased risk. I know that the Intelligence and Security Committee on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and I sit will take a very close interest in that.
	I am sure that the last thing this Home Secretary would want to do is increase the risk to public safety. I mean that genuinely and sincerely, but Parliament must help her. One immediate way in which it can help is by tightening up the Bill in the way that I have suggested and as others will, I am sure, suggest, and then by monitoring closely what happens when the Bill and any amendments that are added to it are put into practice.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who drew on his experience and made some sensible contributions to the debate. I diverge from his view, however, on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made about communications. The point about allowing people to have access to mobile phones, the internet or fixed lines is that there are indeed some intelligent potential or actual terrorists, but equally there are some rather stupid terrorists who may use those facilities and make the sort of connections that would facilitate a prosecution. That might be one of the purposes of making communications available to them.
	The Bill is welcome. It starts to tackle some of the grossest abuses of human rights that existed under the control order system, but I would like it to go further. For instance, on prosecutions, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East referred to the fact that there would be additional resources for covert surveillance and intelligence. My understanding is that that will be used to secure prosecutions, which is welcome. More could be done to secure prosecutions, and we may want to return to that at a later date. I am pleased that the Government are not afraid of improving Bills where and when that is necessary.
	I do not agree with Liberty’s contention that the Bill is worse than the control order system that is currently in place. It is not; it is more targeted. Liberty’s argument seems to be centred on the fact that although control orders are continually on the political table because of the sunset clause that calls for an annual review and the
	associated parliamentary oversight, the effect of the Bill would be permanent. That is true. However, control orders have been debated annually and renewed year after year, whereas TPIMs are limited to a maximum of two years, following an initial period of one year.
	The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East argued that the Government should allow TPIMs to go beyond a two-year period. My understanding of one of the arguments deployed in favour of control orders is their ability to disrupt. One would expect that after a two-year period of a lack of communication or of controlled communication, the disruptive nature of control orders would have had an impact and broken down those networks. The right hon. Gentleman may have been arguing for TPIMs to be applied indefinitely to ensure that that disruption was permanent and took place over a longer time scale. My view is that disruption would have taken place within the first two years and the links would have been broken. To suggest that TPIMs should be extended beyond two years presents a threat from the civil liberties perspective.

Gerry Sutcliffe: There is a case of somebody being subject to a control order that has been in effect for more than two years. If the advice of the Security Service is that it should continue, what would the hon. Gentleman say?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If there has been no evidence of any activity whatever during that period—TPIMs would allow for the measure to be imposed again if there was some sign of activity—and if there has been no activity, with the additional surveillance that will be provided, one must question the Security Service’s position. It might want to keep the person under a control order indefinitely, but if there is no evidence of activity surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that a line must be drawn. Given that the person had not undertaken any terrorist activities, the disruptive effect would have been felt and no further application of a control order would be appropriate.
	As I said, control orders have been debated annually, and they have been renewed annually.

Naomi Long: Control orders having to be debated annually gives Parliament the opportunity to reconsider the situation before deciding whether to continue. The fact that up to now the control order system has been renewed on each occasion does not mean that it would be so indefinitely. Does it not make sense that we should continue to treat these measures as exceptional, rather than routine?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which is a very sound one. I hope, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm this when he responds, that because counter-terrorism legislation is so essential, the Government will want to keep it under review, and that if, in future years, there is a need to adjust the measures, appropriate adjustments will be made.
	What are the other objections to TPIMs? There is the question of whether there is any difference between reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion. It is my view that the Bill presents a higher evidential hurdle. The courts are aware of that, and they know the difference between those two. That difference is significant.
	I acknowledge that TPIMs maintain a system of Executive-imposed measures that do not lie comfortably inside the judicial system. The Bill imposes measures that restrict freedom and human rights. As hon. Members know, those measures include but are not limited to overnight curfews, restrictions on travel, exclusion from certain places and buildings, and restrictions on electronic devices. It has been argued by the Opposition and by Liberty that these measures simply reflect the most offensive aspects of the control order system, but I do not think that that is the case. Clearly, in relation to relocation, internal exile, which the Soviet Union would have been very comfortable with, has gone.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman not have some concerns about the successive non-debate of this issue by Parliament and the fact that a defendant with a two-year TPIM might never know why it was imposed and never have the evidence given to them? All they know is that they have a barrister who does know but is not allowed to tell them and that the judge knows but is not allowed to tell the barrister. Therefore, a circle of secrecy surrounds something that has a major impact on a person’s life, is career-changing, and so on. Is that really right in a liberal democracy?

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman might not be surprised to know that I agree with much of what he says. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has an opportunity to speak, he might echo that very same point. That is why the Bill is clearly an improvement on what is in place now, but has scope for further improvement. I am sure that we will return to that in this place and perhaps in the other place.

Pete Wishart: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand and appreciate that those of us who cannot stand these things think that the Liberals have compromised too cheaply on these issues? I remind him that his leader said:
	“A battery of curfews and tags, imposed in a legal limbo at the behest of politicians, is no surrogate for the aggressive use of the full force of the law.”
	Why have the Liberals caved in so cheaply on these issues?

Tom Brake: I hope to explain why I do not think we have caved in cheaply, as the hon. Gentleman stated. First, relocation has gone. I accept that on overnight curfews I would be much more comfortable with what Liberal Democrats have referred to previously as residency requirements. An address would be identified at which the person would be expected to reside. I hope that the fact that there is no specific definition of overnight curfews will lead to a more flexible approach; that there might be a spectrum according to which overnight curfews may be imposed, going from what most would regard as overnight—eight or 10 hours—through to something much closer to a residency requirement. If overnight curfew was specified precisely, the risk is simply that that is what would be adopted in all cases, so there would not be the ability to consider each individual case in detail. In addition, the exclusions are specific, not geographic as previously, and there is access to telephones, computers and the internet, a matter that was raised by families in relation to their children and their ability to use computers for schoolwork, and so on. Those are real changes that are included in the Bill.
	Another area of concern that has been flagged up and to which the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred is the extent to which the person subject to TPIMs will know what they have been accused of. The Home Secretary said that the individual will know enough about the key elements of their case to enable them to act. That is worthy of further discussion and elucidation. I see the Minister nods and perhaps when he responds he will be able to say more about what this will mean in practice. Clearly, it is an ongoing issue for Liberal Democrats, the hon. Gentleman and others to ensure that people who are subject to control orders or will be subject to TPIMs know as much as possible about the allegations against them without revealing the confidential sources that could put at risk people in the field.

Hazel Blears: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been a number of legal decisions that now require the person subject to a control order to be informed of the substance of the case against them? It is not something new; that is the legal position.

Tom Brake: I am aware that there have been cases where that has been the outcome.
	I am sure that the Minister will want to pick up that matter when he replies. I also hope that this will give him an opportunity to update us on intercept evidence. I understand the difficulties in balancing the operational requirements with the legal requirements and in balancing the scale of benefits with the associated costs, but I hope that he will update the House.
	I referred to prosecutions in relation to surveillance evidence. It might be helpful to specify a time frame within which a prosecution must be brought. There may be some scope for moving on that in future debates.
	I come now to a couple of subjects that I suspect will not necessarily boost my popularity in certain quarters, but having advocated the importance of voting rights for some prisoners my popularity might not be in the ascendant in any case. It is important to treat in a civilised way those who may wish to inflict death or injury on us in order to expose their barbaric nature. That is why we need clear safeguards for those who are extradited to the UK. If people have suffered torture abroad and are subsequently moved to the UK, on their arrival the UK Government have an important role in assessing any health or mental health implications that should be taken on board. There is also the ongoing issue with regard to the role of the control order review group, which the Government will ensure continues in operation under TPIMs, in reviewing the mental health of people subject to control orders and now to TPIMs. It has that role at present, but from the discussions that I have had with those who have been subject to control orders that have subsequently been quashed it does not seem to be working very effectively.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about people who may have been subject to torture in other jurisdictions. This is a controversial issue, but does he agree that we should not deport people to a jurisdiction that has not signed the UN
	convention on torture, and that they should remain here until such time as that jurisdiction signs it, rather than the unfortunate arrangements that were made with a number of countries in the past?

Tom Brake: That is a difficult point to address. I know that there are concerns about how watertight memorandums of understanding are, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. It is a tough call. I am at risk of making policy on the hoof if I give an instant response. It is a difficult issue and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. Perhaps when the Minister responds he will say whether the UK Government are making progress in drawing up memorandums of understanding with other countries where we believe that the safeguards are sufficient to allow that.
	There are some issues around how people subject to TPIMs are dealt with, and what sort of assessment is made, particularly of their mental health, and any torture that they may have experienced in the countries that they come from.
	I will support the Government on Second Reading. The Bill is better than its predecessor. Its measures are more targeted, less damaging to individuals subject to TPIMs and more observant of human rights. But it is not perfect and can be improved, and I hope that it will be during its passage here and in the other place.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate this evening and I think that all the contributions made so far indicate how serious the issues we are dealing with are and how difficult for everyone, whichever side of the House they are on, because it is a case of trying to weigh the balance and make some very difficult judgments. When dealing with matters of national security, it is important that we try as far as possible to reach a consensus, because these matters are incredibly important for the country, and that we try to start from the evidence base, which in my experience leads to better decisions on where the balance of judgment should rightly lie.
	I want to think about the evidence we face at the moment. First, that concerns the nature of the threat. Sometimes these issues are discussed in the abstract and are not necessarily rooted in the reality of the threat that the country faces. For some years the threat level has been “severe”, which is only one step down from “imminent”. That means that this country faces a very significant threat from al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism, often originating abroad but also involving people who were born and brought up in this country and are enmeshed in a series of worrying plots. It is important to put on the record the nature of the threat that the country faces.
	Secondly, we should consider the extent of the problem. People sometimes feel that, because we have been dealing with this threat for 10 years and have had the control order regime in place for the past six, the extent of that threat has somehow reduced. At any one time, the security services are dealing with tens of plots, which are often very complex and interrelated, with a web of international and domestic actors and many technologies, and involving incredibly complex organisations. Between
	1,600 and 2,000 known terrorist suspects are involved in these plots, and those are the ones we know about. There may well be other organisations, other plots and other individuals who, as we speak, are intent on organising the kind of terror that can wreak mayhem and destruction on our communities. The sustained nature of the threat and its extent ought to be a backdrop to some of the difficult decisions that we have to make with regard to this legislation.
	There is therefore a clear need for surveillance and the gathering of intelligence and evidence on the intentions and actions of those involved in planning and conducting terrorist operations. It is of course right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and others point out in an eloquent and genuine way, that in a free democracy such as ours we should always seek to bring those involved in terrorism before the criminal courts. That should be our starting point. We should bring prosecutions where the evidence can be adduced and tested, where witnesses can be cross-examined and where a jury can reach a verdict on whether the accused is guilty or innocent. That must be the starting point in any democracy—that we have a criminal system that allows all that to be done as openly and transparently as possible.
	One of the reasons we brought in some of the new offences now on the statute book, such as committing acts preparatory to terrorism, was to enable us to interrupt plots at the earliest possible stage and still be able to bring a criminal prosecution and go through the conventional criminal system and bring those people to justice. Those offences have been very useful in giving the police powers to interrupt early and ensure that they disrupt the plot and prevent any damage while still using the conventional criminal justice system, which is obviously what we want to encourage.
	However, we must recognise that there are—and, unfortunately, likely to be for the foreseeable future—a small number of people involved in terrorism who pose a serious threat to the safety of our citizens and country and who cannot be brought within the ambit of the conventional criminal justice system. Much as we may dislike it, that is the situation we face. For several years there have been discussions, or attempts at discussions, between various Home Secretaries and Ministers and the judicial system, and in many cases the judiciary have been reluctant to engage in any discussions on whether the way the criminal justice system operates can be amended. I understand their reluctance because of the separation of the Executive and the judiciary, and they want to avoid confusion, but I feel that the criminal justice system is not necessarily able to cope with the nature of the threat and the offences we face in the world we now live in.
	Many of the suspects cannot be subjected to the traditional judicial system because to do so would mean bringing forward intelligence and evidence that could put at risk the lives of those who seek to protect us. We cannot allow that intelligence to be revealed as doing so would reveal those agents and their personal security would be jeopardised. Those people put their lives on the line for the people of this country and we have a duty to protect them. Bringing forward that intelligence would also reveal the surveillance methods and techniques that the security services often use to gain it, which would also undermine their ability to keep us all safe.
	Control orders have been used in a small number of cases and I think that we should get that number to its irreducible minimum. We imposed only 48 control orders in the six years that they have existed and there are only eight or 10 now in place. It is a very tightly managed and controlled regime, so those powers are not sprayed around and used loosely as a way of rounding up the usual suspects. That is absolutely not the intention. I am afraid that the reality, which we should all be grown up enough to acknowledge, is that the threat we face is such that we have to have a system that, however distasteful we as democrats find it, can protect the people for whom we are responsible.
	It was for that reason that in 2005 the then Home Secretary and I, as the Minister responsible for policing and counter-terrorism, brought forward the original control order legislation, which the Bill seeks to alter in some significant respects. I will never forget bringing forward that legislation. I remember being in this House at 4 o’clock in the morning debating that hugely contested legislation. In some ways that was very difficult, but in others it was very encouraging as it indicated the depth of commitment on both sides of the House to a free democracy in which people felt strongly about those issues. I was very glad when we finished at 10 o’clock that morning; nevertheless, it was an inspiring occasion and a good one for the House.
	I want make it crystal clear to the House that, whatever some Members might say, that original legislation was not introduced in some kind of knee-jerk overreaction to the events of 9/11 or 7/7. It was a genuine recognition of the inability of the criminal justice system to accommodate the situation we faced. I am a lawyer and I have huge respect for the rule of law—

Paul Goggins: Steady.

Hazel Blears: Steady on, absolutely.
	I also know how important it is to have a practical and workable system in place. We must ensure that those who pose a significant threat to ordinary people’s safety can be tracked and prevented from pursuing their plans to cause death and serious harm in pursuit of their warped political ideology.
	We all want to achieve consensus where we can, but I have some serious concerns about some of the Bill’s proposals, with regard to their effectiveness, their ability to disrupt those who will be subject to TPIMs, as they are so elegantly called, and whether they will provide us with a proper level of security. Lord Carlile is always called in aid in these debates, and I want to place on the record my thanks to him for the fabulous job he has done over the years as the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He said just last year:
	“In stark terms, the potential cost of losing control orders is that the UK would be more vulnerable to a successful terrorist attack.”
	He does not say such things lightly. He has huge experience in trying to weigh the balance and get the judgment right. He also said:
	“Unless control orders were replaced by some equally disruptive and practicable system… the repeal of control orders would create a worryingly higher level of public risk.”
	We ought to have serious and close regard to what Lord Carlile has said and test the Bill against the concerns he has expressed.
	In a powerful contribution, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary expressed her concerns about some of those issues, so I will not speak about them at length. The relocation issue is a genuine concern. It may be characterised as internal exile or a soviet-style imposition, but if it is necessary for someone to be located away from the networks that they have established in order to improve the safety of ordinary citizens, I do not think it should simply be ruled out on principle.
	We have discussed whether access to mobile phones and computers might enable us to obtain further evidence for prosecution, but I am very doubtful that it will. I am concerned that people will have access not simply to one mobile phone: once they have one, it will be very easy indeed for experienced people not to dupe the security services, as I hope they are not capable of being duped, but to create the sense that it is normal to have access to a computer and a mobile phone. The prospect of a security risk is therefore higher than I would feel comfortable with, so I seek reassurance from the Minister on access to electronic equipment. We know how much terrorist business is done online and with technology. It is a massive issue for us, and this measure could present us with an increased risk.

Julian Huppert: Has the right hon. Lady spoken to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins)? He was concerned that those people simply would not use such equipment so we would not get any information. One cannot have it both ways. If those people are going to use such equipment and are capable of duping the security services, or whatever term the right hon. Lady wishes to use, they might be doing it now, just like those who abscond. Surely this is a more liberal measure that will also help with prosecutions.

Hazel Blears: But that is no reason to relax the powers. If there are fears that such activities could be happening now, I should be very concerned indeed and certainly would not want to go down the path of having less control over access to electronic equipment. I require further reassurance, as do the citizens of this country, that we are not going to give people access to mobile phones and computers so that they can maintain those relationships and networks that are the very reason they are subject to a control order or, indeed, will be subject to a TPIM. We require further reassurance on that issue.
	I am very concerned about the inability to renew the TPIM after two years. In the case of AM in 2007, the control order lasted for more than two and a half years. When it came up for renewal Mr Justice Wilkie, confirming its renewal after two and a half years, said that AM was
	“highly intelligent, calm, cautious beyond his years. He has replied and maintains this degree of calmness and self-confidence, which in my judgment is consistent with the view of the Security Service that he is a disciplined, trained and committed person whose commitment remains unimpaired, despite the length of the control order. He was and remains prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives. He remains highly trained, security conscious and committed.”
	I am therefore concerned that if there is a blanket prohibition, in any circumstances and without the addition of new evidence of involvement in terrorism such orders will come to an end. I require further assurance. If the
	reason for making the TPIM in the first place were of sufficient seriousness, I would be extremely concerned about our deciding simply to say that there is an arbitrary cut-off point, as the legislation does, irrespective of the threat that the person poses.

Tom Brake: What does the right hon. Lady think would be a reasonable period, if there had been no activity whatever, for a TPIM to apply to somebody?

Hazel Blears: These are matters for careful and balanced judgment, which is why we have constant judicial oversight, why we have to return to the courts to renew our orders and why we have a legal system in this country which is capable of making such judgments. If we are in the hands of a respected, experienced and knowledgeable High Court judge, who has heard submissions on the issues, I should feel slightly more content than if an order simply came to an arbitrary end as a result of legislation passed in this House.

Pete Wishart: If that individual is so dangerous, why do we not just arrest him, charge him and throw the full force of the judicial system at him?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, because this is where we end up in a sort of tortuous circle. That individual has not been charged because the intelligence against him does not comprise evidence, has been gained by covert surveillance and cannot be revealed in court, as it will put at risk either the lives of the agents or their techniques. We know that this person, as Mr Justice Wilkie said, remains a trained and committed martyr to the cause and is prepared to carry out further attacks, but, because the individual cannot be prosecuted through the conventional criminal justice system, the hon. Gentleman’s decision would be to let him walk free.
	That is the judgment that has to be made, and that is why these issues weigh so heavily on the people who have to make the decisions, people such as the Home Secretary, who has to make those decisions in individual cases. They weigh incredibly heavily on all of us and are not lightly taken, and that is why we need a system of checks and balances. An arbitrary limit of a two-year TPIM in every single case would cause me concern if the original threat still existed.
	My final concern, on which I have not received reassurance, is the extra costs of surveillance, because there will need to be greater surveillance if TPIMs conditions are substantially lighter and less invasive than those of control orders. Next year we have the Olympics, which will be a massive drain on the resources of the security services. That is acknowledged throughout the system, so I want significant reassurance from the Minister about the ability of the security services to maintain the same assurance to the citizens of our country through TPIMs as they have through the control orders system. I am not satisfied that that is the case.
	The control order system had more measures to disrupt people’s ability to organise their networks. Surveillance does not take the place of disruption, because it is a different technique of a different order, and, as Lord Carlile says, unless there is a system of disruption as well as surveillance, he has concerns about the effectiveness of the regime, as do I. The security
	services say that the extra resources would mitigate the risk, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) has said, and it is incumbent on the Government to give us such reassurance.
	We must remind ourselves that the people who have been the subject of control orders are not law-abiding, innocent citizens going freely about their business. By their very nature, they are dangerous people who pose a real threat to our safety, and the measures must be sufficient to reassure people properly that the system is sufficient to control the movements of such individuals. Surveillance is not as effective as disruption, so we need to do more to ensure that disruption takes place.
	In all my years as a Home Office Minister, and through my work in the Communities and Local Government Department, control orders have represented some of the most difficult decisions I have had to make, because they go to the heart of our democracy. Our freedoms are incredibly hard won, and none of us wants to give them up lightly at all. I talked to a senior member of the judiciary a few weeks ago, who said passionately and in a very committed way, “Hazel, whenever there’s a decision to be made between liberty and security, I will always, always err on the side of liberty,” but it is more complicated than that.
	We cannot simply say that we would always make the decisions in that way. We might do in theory, in academic practice and, certainly, in terms of our values, but we are faced with making a decision that must balance security and liberty, the security of ordinary people seeking to go about their daily lives, as against the liberty of people for whom there is a great deal of intelligence to say that they are dangerous and dedicated, because of their political ideology, to causing mass harm and death among the community at large. That is an incredibly difficult decision, but sometimes it is portrayed as an easy one.
	Of course, we do not want to restrict people’s civil liberties or to introduce a punitive, repressive or oppressive regime, but the alternative is to allow people who pose a severe and dangerous threat to our country to walk our streets. Those decisions are hard to make, and I just ask the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is on the Treasury Bench tonight, to think really hard, as I know they will, about whether their proposed regime is sufficient to give the people of this country the reassurance that they deserve, and to ensure that that tiny minority of people who are subject to a regime are not able to continue to pose the threat of damage, death and destruction to the people of this country. I look forward in Committee to the Minister giving us a great deal more reassurance than I have had this evening.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who brings to this subject not only a great deal of common sense but a great deal of experience. As she said, our liberties depend on our security. The two are inextricably linked; we cannot have one without the other.
	As the right hon. Lady also rightly said, we sometimes lose the sense of why we are here having these debates in the first place. Over the past few days, four of our
	fighting men have been killed in Afghanistan, and it is worth bearing in mind that a police officer was recently blown to pieces in Omagh. They died for two things: not only to guarantee our physical security and protection but to guarantee that our liberties remain pre-eminent in our society. I would therefore, with the greatest of respect, ask that we all lift our sights a little—that we stop arguing about telephones, computers, curfews and other technical things and remember why we are here. We are here to honour the memories of those young men and young women who have died for us so that we can have a debate such as this in complete freedom and comfort. The single most important freedom that I would iterate on this occasion is the freedom for the accused man or woman to be innocent until he or she is proved guilty. Control orders do not do that. Control orders deny the very liberty, the very freedom, the very values for which our young men are this evening facing death and destruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and I remember the difficult times of the mid-2000s. I have jousted with him many times and always enjoy his contributions. He made a fascinating point when he said that there was no rule book; I think that “instruction book” was his precise phrase. Indeed there was not, but there was a history book; in fact, there were lots of history books. Over the past 60 years or so, this country has allowed itself to make two grave errors at times of serious national emergency. On the first occasion, we were in a war of national survival, when we banged up tens of thousands of people during the period of wartime internment and assumed that they were guilty without giving them any form of trial. Because of the circumstances, that was not as serious a mistake as that which we made in the early 1970s when we interned hundreds of people in Ulster. I do not want to try to drag the argument into a simple, narrow one about Irish republicanism. None the less, it is important that we understand that control orders fly in the face of every lesson that we learned in the ’70s, for which many of my comrades died and others, including me, shed our blood.
	Internment was wrong for all sorts of reasons. It was a straightforward denial of liberty, but much more importantly, it left behind a legacy of hatred that continues up until this day. I do not need to tell the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who lives with this on a minute-to-minute basis, that we are currently facing a threat in Ulster that is no less than that which we face from Islamist fundamentalism on these shores. That is because we got the issues and arguments that we are discussing wrong decades ago, and we must now make sure that we get them right. There is no place for control orders in a civilised society that wishes to counter terrorism intelligently, thoughtfully, and based on practice from the past. I therefore say to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East that we should have used the history books before we started to compose these sorts of laws, which have done such damage and wasted so much time and so much life. We should have looked more carefully at where we got it wrong in the past.
	Let us stop arguing about telephones, computers and all the technical things and ask ourselves what we can do to get rid of a pernicious system that denies the very thing in which we all believe—freedom and the ability
	to be innocent until proven guilty. Let us re-inject energy into our decision to negotiate memorandums of understanding. Let us talk to foreign Governments in more detail. Let us re-approach the European courts with greater energy. Let us try to insist that if an individual from another country commits a crime, or is thought to be about to commit a crime, or is even thought to be guilty of a crime, although not proven to be so, he or she is sent back to the country from which he or she originates. If it seems we cannot do that, let us then inject more energy into trying to do it—let us not give up. At the same time, let us look at the techniques that we can apply to make sure that intelligence on these individuals is turned into evidence that can be used in court to convict them and to get them behind bars if they are guilty, or, if they are not, to give them their liberty back.
	I ask the Minister what has happened to the process of intercept evidence. Even as early as 1977, we were concerned about whether we could use that in court as evidence. To the best of my second lieutenant’s knowledge, it was being reviewed in the mid-’70s. Why can we still not use intercept evidence in court? I refuse to give in to the foot-dragging approach that the previous Government took on this issue. When I served on the Home Affairs Committee, we were told, “This is not a silver bullet, but by golly it will help.” What about questioning after charge? I think we have made some progress on that; the Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong. Surely it is a tool that we can use, is it not?
	Lastly—I have told people not to be too technical, and here I am delving into all sorts of technical things—there is plea bargaining, which the Americans and the Canadians use very successfully. Where do we stand on that? Have we given it enough thought? Have we had a refreshed insight and looked carefully at how we can use it? If we raise our eyes above the parapet of the specific argument, there are devices that we can use to produce evidence to get people into court and put them on trial. That has to be the aim rather than the current mish-mash of illiberal nonsense that we have within the democracy that we sometimes pretend to be.
	My heart bleeds less than most people’s, but the fact remains that we cannot deal with these individuals improperly for two reasons: first, because of their basic human rights, about which I feel strongly; and secondly, for practical reasons. If we continue to subject minorities in this country to measures such as control orders, all of which are being applied to a very small number of people who come from a similar sort of background and believe in a similar sort of cause, we are bound to disaffect the wider societies from which they hail. We need look no further than what we did to the Roman Catholic population in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. We imposed not the same, but similar measures on those people—not entirely, but almost exclusively. The effect was that a military campaign by the Irish Republican Army that was pretty well over by the end of the ’70s extended itself well into the ’90s and killed hundreds more people than it needed to.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman has returned to the parallel between internment in the 1970s and control orders and TPIMs now. I acknowledge what he says
	about the impact of internment in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, but to draw a direct parallel between that and control orders and TPIMs is erroneous. The authorisation and oversight system is much more rigorous in relation to control orders and TPIMs than ever it was for internment.

Patrick Mercer: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I accede to that point. I will go with him, sit on a Committee and talk about all that good stuff. However, that does not make a difference in the eyes of the violent republican and the Islamist fundamentalist. They will make the parallels completely and perfectly, and they will use them to twist the mind and to suborn the innocent. That is exactly my point, and I am grateful to him for making it, because we are in danger of becoming over-technical.
	I will not extend the point much further. It is simple: if we are not careful, we will impose on the very people whom we are trying to recruit and to persuade to come to our side the same sort of measures that we imposed on the Roman Catholic population in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. I will quote a song that summarises the point:
	“Being Irish means you’re guilty, so we’re guilty one and all.”
	Irish republicans were able to write that line because of internment. Irish republicans were able to write that line because their society had been suborned by a Government who were misguided. The parallels are not exact, but they are there. This is illiberal, this is improper, this is impractical, and this is wrong. We must get rid of control orders as soon as we can.

Pete Wishart: I know that in this House we often say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, but in this case I really mean it. That was a thoughtful speech that got to the heart of the matter. It showed the impact that control orders and TPIMs have on the wider community, and the way in which they are seen by the communities that are subjected to them.
	When we make legislation that does not allow the defendant to see any of the evidence that is presented against them, we are getting into difficult and dangerous territory. I agree with the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) that we have to tread carefully. There have been thoughtful speeches tonight and Members have made their points well, but I think that we are being a little too cavalier when it comes to the civil liberties of so many people in our nation. I know that these measures apply to only a few people, but the problem is how they are perceived. That is what we should consider before going any further down the line of introducing a new regime to replace control orders.
	Control orders have failed more than any other measure. They have not worked. They have led to no convictions whatsoever. We must consider the fact that 15% of those who have been subject to a control order are now at liberty and we do not know where they are. Control orders have failed, they do not work, and they have a disastrous impact on communities and individuals throughout this country.
	I say to the Minister that I have been quite impressed by the performance of the Conservative-led Government over the past few months. They have been as good as
	their word. They have helped to dismantle the rotten, anti-civil libertarian state bequeathed by the last Labour Government. I cheered them to the rafters when they introduced the Bill to get rid of the hated Labour ID cards scheme. I wish I could have been there at the bonfire of the equally detested national database, which Labour introduced. I welcome the progress that has been made on pre-charge detention. It is not perfect, but there has been massive progress, particularly when one considers that in the days of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), we were approaching 90 days’ pre-charge detention. Thank goodness those days are gone. I also applaud the Conservative-led Government on their progress on all the other surveillance apparatus so cherished by the last Labour Government.
	Why stop at control orders? We could have got rid of those too. This is the last remaining rotten piece of legislation from Labour’s anti-civil libertarian state. Of course, we saw this coming. We all heard the rumours of disagreements in the Cabinet and between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. We did not see the Bill for months, until a face-saving exercise was concocted to allow the Deputy Prime Minister a bit of dignity on the issue. However, it is a rotten compromise. It has done nothing. The only thing the Liberals have got out of it is a renaming of control orders. It is just not good enough. They could have got the whole thing, made progress and got shot of these odious practices, such as people being subject to curfews without any exposure to the evidence that is presented against them.
	I am disappointed in the behaviour of this Government on control orders, and I expected better of the Home Secretary and her ministerial team. However, they are subject to pressures too. I can just imagine all the fine representatives of the security and intelligence industry wandering into No. 10 and telling them, “These measures are absolutely essential and have to be done. Civil liberties are all right, but this is about national security.” I can just imagine the files being presented and the Home Secretary being convinced that these measures are absolutely necessary.
	I say to the Minister that when it comes to control orders, this Conservative Government are little better than Lord Reid and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). It was new Labour that introduced these measures, and we have to consider the journey that we have taken on this issue. They were introduced in an absolute panic with emergency legislation, which was supposed to be temporary. They were supposed to apply only to foreign nationals. There are now no foreign national controlees—they are all UK residents. All the reasons why we had these things in the first place have gone. Nobody who has been subject to a control order has been prosecuted. Control orders have failed in bringing people to justice, because nobody has been brought to justice and there has been no attempt to bring anybody to justice under control orders.
	Now we have TPIMs. What is the difference? There is not really any difference. I accept what Liberty says, although I know the Liberals do not. I believe that in some respects, TPIMs are worse than control orders, because they are permanent and will not be subject to yearly reviews. That is the great anti-civil libertarian flaw at the heart of the TPIMs regime. In other respects, there is no difference. Control orders are instigated by
	the Home Secretary with the permission of the High Court, except in urgent cases. TPIMs will be instigated by the Home Secretary with the permission of the High Court, except in urgent cases. There are closed proceedings under control orders and special advocates examine secret evidence forming the basis of the order. Under TPIMs, there will be closed proceedings and special advocates will examine secret evidence forming the basis of the order. There is no difference whatsoever. If there is a breach, there is five years’ imprisonment under control orders. Under TPIMs—surprise, surprise—it is also five years. There is very little difference.
	Under the Bill, individuals who are branded as terror suspects will still be left at large in the community, unable to challenge the suspicion against them or prove it to be wrong. They will be subject to electronic tagging and curfews. Actually, they are not curfews, but overnight residence requirements. Who on earth made up that term? It sounds like a sleepover that kids would be involved in, only it is a sleepover with police surveillance and an electronic tag. It is no different from a curfew and it is a massive restriction on people’s liberty. There will be restrictions on communication, movement and the ability to work or study. As before, individuals who are subject to TPIMs will be prevented from leading any kind of normal life.
	The TPIMs regime will prove to be as ineffective as its predecessor in fighting terrorism. It will continue to tip off suspects and prevent evidence from being gathered, while leaving potentially dangerous people at large in the community for extended periods. I have mentioned the fact that 15% of controlees have disappeared. That demonstrates that administrative community punishments that are used in the place of criminal prosecutions are as dangerous to security as they are to liberty.
	Control orders were rushed through Parliament. After 10 years, I thought that we would come to this House, consider the issue and see whether they were still required. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches that have been made tonight, and I have heard no evidence to suggest that these things are still required.
	In many ways the new orders are worse, because there is permanence to them. The powers will no longer be reviewed every year, and the labelling of people as terrorists without any sight of the evidence against them will now be made permanent. There is more, because the Secretary of State could unleash all sorts of concessionary measures that could make the orders even more unpleasant. There could be further restrictions, curfews and bans on communications and associations—it is all very subjective. I am implacably opposed to control orders, and I have seen no evidence that they are required.

Steven Baker: I am very much inclined to agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but what would he say about the argument from those who promote these measures that the people who will be subject to them are terrorist suspects against whom prosecutions cannot be brought?

Pete Wishart: That is exactly what is said, and we have heard from a number of contributors this evening that these are people against whom there is not sufficient evidence or evidence of good enough quality for a successful prosecution. We heard the example of an individual who has had a control order against him for
	two years. His liberty has been compromised for two years because he has not been able to prove his innocence in a court and the state has not been able to prove his guilt. That is at the heart of the matter, which was why the hon. Member for Newark was spot on in his observations about how control orders are operating.

Naomi Long: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the debate has been framed in the context of whether we put security before liberty or liberty before security, but that in fact there is a fine balance between the two? By denying liberty we not only radicalise young people into terrorism—we have seen that in Northern Ireland, although I accept that the parallels are not perfect—but provide a concession to terrorists, who are out to remove our liberty.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady is spot on. I know that every Government do their best to balance the security requirements of the nation and civil liberties. I think that most of what the Labour Government did on civil liberties was totally wrong, and I opposed most of the measures that they took, but I believe that they acted in the best interests of security. However, with the invasion of Iraq they radicalised a generation of international Islamists and Muslims, and they took measures that seemed to be targeted against one specific community in the UK. They fostered resentment and created massive community divisions. They got that utterly and totally wrong.
	I thought that the new Government would come in with a new broom. They have done a lot of good things in dismantling the apparatus that Labour put in place, but I wish that they had spent a bit more time on this subject. They still have the opportunity to improve the Bill, and I hope that they will do so in Committee.

Julian Huppert: It is a great pleasure to follow a number of today’s speeches, particularly the last two. I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, and it is a particular pleasure to follow him because I spent some of the recess cycling through his constituency. It is great to find his countryside, as well as most of his opinions, agreeable. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) also made a fantastic speech.
	I am in sympathy with both hon. Members, because this is a disappointing Bill. It does not live up to the aspirations that many of us had that this Government would come in and clear away much more of the vestiges of what Labour had set up. There is of course a balance to be struck, and nobody would dispute the fact that there is a real terrorist threat. The question is how best to deal with it. If we go the way Labour did, we will make it much worse as well as sacrificing civil liberties. That is why the balance needs to be struck. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go as far as it should.
	My interpretation is that Home Office Ministers did not manage to stand up to officials who continued the groupthink that we saw for many long years under Labour and that we have heard in a number of speeches. There are, of course, some honourable exceptions—the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has
	been very clear on the subject—but most of the speeches that we have heard from Labour Members make it clear that they would like a more authoritarian approach. That is one of the problems that the new Home Office Ministers have had to deal with.
	It is a shame that the shadow Home Secretary is not in her place, because I wanted to thank her for giving an excellent example of somebody trying to have their cake and eat it. She said at one point that there was a substantial difference between control orders and TPIMs, but then said they were essentially exactly the same. However, it was finally clear, although she would not admit it when I asked her, that it seems to be Labour party policy to keep control orders, with all the bad things about them. We have heard the arguments for relocation, secret evidence and further infringements of civil liberties.
	I would like to go further in a liberal direction. As I have said, the Bill is disappointing, but it is not a disaster and can perhaps be saved. I hope that the Committee will do that. There is a new Minister responsible for security, who sadly is not in his place, and I am sure that he will be able to be very much more reasonable about issues such as this; he has been very reasonable about drugs policy in previous discussions.
	Some of the Bill is great. I like clause 1, which is a really fantastic clause and one that I fought an election to try to achieve. However, the Bill goes downhill a bit after that. It keeps extra-judicial processes, which we should not wish to see. We have the rule of law for a reason. The Bill also keeps secrecy, as has been mentioned, with special advocates and secret evidence so that people do not know what they are accused of and cannot adequately brief a barrister to represent them.
	Ultimately, the problem is that the Bill relies entirely on the good judgment of the Home Secretary. It contains a broad power allowing for anything that the Home Secretary reasonably believes to be necessary, which could be any of a long list. I have no doubt that the current Home Secretary is more liberal than some of the previous ones, but do we all have faith in all future Home Secretaries of whatever party making the right decisions? I am very concerned about that.
	We expected some good bits in the Bill, and in her statement the Home Secretary talked about better focus and more targeted restrictions, which is a good step. She also talked about powers similar to those used in the civil justice system to prevent sexual offences and domestic violence, for example, and I would have liked to see those powers in the Bill. The Bill could have been much more like other parts of the law, but that opportunity was missed.
	Another good part of the Bill that we expected to see is the idea that police will have a greater duty to look after prosecutions. One has to look carefully to find it: it is in clause 10(5)(a). However, the change is very little. We have heard that the police process has been very ineffective. Because the security services have looked after the case management of the people in question, the efforts to prosecute have been extremely weak. I have no faith that what is in the Bill at the moment will make a difference to that, so it absolutely must be strengthened.
	It is very good to know that there will not be relocation. I am pleased to see that in the Bill. The change from curfews to an overnight residence requirement is a small step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. I should like a residency requirement that reflects the situation of most people. Most people—I realise that MPs are not typical in this regard—have a home where they normally reside overnight. That does not mean that they are there every night, or that they are there for the same hours every night, but it provides a reasonable way to find somebody. That should be the standard approach if we must have restrictions of any kind.
	There is another improvement in the Bill, which is the move from “reasonable suspicion” to “reasonable belief”. We have heard that it will probably have a minimal effect, but it is a bit better. However, I say again what I said in a debate earlier in the year about terrorist asset-freezing: it still means that there is a threshold below the balance of probabilities. We are not asking for evidence to be demonstrated to a level at which we can have even a 50:50 belief that somebody is involved in terrorist activity. Many of us would like a criminal standard and a criminal conviction, but under the Bill the evidence threshold is below the civil standard, which very much concerns me.
	I am also concerned that we are losing the annual review. I agree with the comments that have been made about that. Control orders were introduced as emergency, temporary legislation, and I believe we are now past that emergency, temporary period. I would like us not to have an annual review, but only because we have got rid of control orders completely and their replacement does not arouse our concerns. However, I am worried about parliamentary scrutiny of the process.
	I am also concerned about schedule 1. I am grateful to the Home Office for allowing me to have discussions about what might be in it, but it is much broader than I had ever anticipated. It mentions exclusions from particular areas, and the explanatory notes highlight that that could include a mosque. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me whether it could include an exclusion from all mosques, or from any other religious building for people from other backgrounds. It mentions association bans, on which there are very few constraints. Could they involve banning somebody from associating with their family? What safety is there in that measure? A long list of measures—I shall follow the direction of the hon. Member for Newark and not go through every single one of them—must be pulled out and dealt with in Committee.
	The Bill is simply not good enough. The details need to change, but so do the principles. We can spend a lot of time haggling over phraseology, but the approach is wrong. Any alternative should be part of the normal legal process, and we must find a way to make that normal process work.
	Effectively, there is a power for judicial review, but that is not the same as judicial oversight. That power relies on judges deciding that the Home Secretary has made obviously flawed decisions. That is quite a tough standard, and I would like the measures to be much more in the control of the courts. They should make decisions rather than have a weak power if the Home Secretary behaves excessively.
	In 2010, the Select Committee on Home Affairs stated:
	“It is our considered view that it is fundamentally wrong to deprive individuals of their liberty without revealing why.”
	I hope all hon. Members agree with that. There should be more of a focus on prosecution. There are some measures on communications and extra money will be available for surveillance, but they are legislatively weak. We know that control orders acted against the interests of prosecutions. The Home Office counter-terror report stated that control orders can mean
	“that prosecution and conviction…becomes less not more likely”.
	Control orders make it harder to achieve what we want. If people have been involved in terrorist activities, we would like them to be convicted and put behind bars. The scheme is also expensive to run, because it interferes so badly with human rights and basic principles. Continuous wrangling over that leads to very large legal costs—about £13 million over a few years.
	There are alternatives to control orders. Police bail, which has been discussed, is not a perfect system, but it fits much more with other measures that we use, which makes it a more normal and sensible way of running the system. We need to use much more evidence. If we have covert or intercept evidence, we should use it. We had an interesting discussion about people whom we know are terrorists but whom we cannot convict, even if we have evidence. Instead, we put them in limbo for a long period. The correct solution must be to change the system so that we can convict them.
	In his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I used to serve, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who has spent a long time analysing and reviewing such matters, was absolutely clear that intercepts should be used. He pointed out that one frequently uses informers, bugs and probes in respect of criminal offences, and that there are ways of managing and using such evidence. He said that he had
	“never accepted the argument that its effect would be marginal.”
	He continued:
	“You simply have to raise that argument in Washington and see the reaction on people’s faces when you suggest that intercept would not be useful, or ask people in Canberra or Ottawa, or anywhere else. They simply cannot believe that people are making this argument.”
	I, too, cannot believe it. We should ensure that we use intercept evidence.
	We should also look again at other options that Lord Macdonald has proposed, such as giving the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to say, “We can prosecute, but not yet. We must hold this person for a while first.” That would give more control to the DPP. We should also give more control to the High Court. We could make the Bill better in a number of different ways to make it more a part of the legal system.
	It has been said that the Government wish to have emergency legislation in case TPIMs are not enough. That worries me, because I think that TPIMs are too much anyway. What is that emergency legislation, when will we see it, and will it have pre-legislative scrutiny? I see no reason why the Opposition, whom we know are keen on stronger measures, should be the only parliamentarians to see it. All Members of Parliament should see it, so that it can be discussed. If there is ever a need to use something stronger than a TPIM, we
	should think about it carefully in advance, not at 4 o’clock in the morning in a panic. We should look at such a measure very carefully.
	I can tolerate the Bill on Second Reading—I like clause 1 and am happy to live with it—and there is still time to improve the Bill in Committee. We should not wait for the other place to go through the Bill properly: this House should make it work. We should improve the Bill in Committee and on Report, but I would be uncomfortable supporting the Bill on Third Reading unless there are changes and reassurances.
	I shall end with some final words from Lord Macdonald. On control orders, he said:
	“The reality is that controlees become warehoused far beyond the harsh scrutiny of due process and, in consequence, some terrorist activity undoubtedly remains unpunished by the criminal law. This is a serious and continuing failure of public policy.”
	He is absolutely right, and we should not let that situation continue.

Jeremy Corbyn: I should first apologise to the House for missing the Home Secretary’s introductory speech, but I have been present for the rest of the debate. I welcome this opportunity to discuss anti-terrorism law. I think I am the only Member currently in the Chamber who has been here long enough to have voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which was seen at the time as the low point in the attack on civil liberties. Oh that we were only discussing such an Act these days!
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who spoke of the effect of internment in Ireland and other places. When a state decides to take away the liberties of large numbers of people, the consequences are felt for a very long time. He talked about what happened in Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s, but we can look back to the wholly irrational way in which British Jewish people were interned in 1940 at the start of the second world war. That was entirely counter-productive and an idiotic thing to do. There were also long-term effects on the attitudes of Japanese Americans to US society from the disgusting way in which they were put in concentration camps in California in 1942 because they were automatically assumed to be supporters of the Japanese in the war. If anyone had bothered to think about that, they might have asked why those people were living in the USA in the first place. The consequences of such actions go on for a very long time.
	I am not suggesting that the Bill is equivalent to those measures, because it is not. It is much smaller and specifically targeted, but I have, nevertheless, some fundamental issues with it. Most states take unto themselves a power to override the judicial system in some way—most have some special security law or courts, or whatever. Without going into the whole history of this matter in Britain, the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was a response to the Birmingham pub bombings. The first person arrested under the Act was one of the Guildford Four, who spent 18 years proving his innocence and who was finally released as a result. That Act was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Act 2000, which preceded the dreadful events of 2001.
	I remember spending all night in the Chamber at that time discussing what we would do to beef up our counter-terrorism measures. At every stage, the argument was to go further away from open criminal courts and further in the direction of special courts and special measures, with lower levels of evidence gathering. We have now ended up with the obnoxious silent court mentality. The barrister probably knows the nature of the case against the individual whom he is supposed to represent, and the judge and the prosecution certainly know, but the defendant is not allowed to know and his barrister is not allowed to tell him. That is a dangerous road to go down. Anyone who has met someone who has been the subject of a control order or some kind of restriction will know that they are for ever changed by the experience. In some cases, they are subsequently prosecuted. In others, they are not: the control order is lifted, they disappear, and that is that. The corrosive effect on them, their families, their lives and their community is very serious, and we should be extremely careful about introducing legislation that gives courts the power effectively to act in secret, and the security services the power to present evidence that is heard in secret and used to punish people, when the security services are never publicly accountable for what they do. I understand that there are all kinds of dangers involved in all sorts of things, but if we legislate to allow an arm of the state to operate covertly with no public accountability for what it does, therein lies enormous danger.
	The very least we can do is examine the Bill in great detail in Committee and, above all, ensure that the legislation is subject to regular parliamentary review. It is our duty as elected Members of a free Parliament in a free society to hold the Government, and the agencies of the Government and the state, to account. It is not good enough to pass this legislation saying that we will return to it and debate the issue again as and when a future Government feel it appropriate to introduce another form of counter-terrorism legislation. As well as the obvious parliamentary scrutiny through Select Committees, questions, Adjournment debates and all the other tools that are available to us to hold the Government to account, there ought to be a regular parliamentary debate and review of the whole arrangement on a six-monthly or yearly basis. The PTA was renewed on a six-monthly basis throughout its entire existence.

Steven Baker: I find myself agreeing with the vast majority of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Looking around the Chamber, I see that there is almost no one here. Does he agree that in the status quo, given the level of interest in this subject and the nature of the whipping system, regular parliamentary scrutiny of this matter would actually amount to very little?

Jeremy Corbyn: I have always had an interesting relationship with the whipping system in Parliament. We are here as MPs to represent the constituents who have been good enough to send us here, and we are here to answer for ourselves. We must be prepared to ask these questions and to take part in these debates. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am extremely disappointed that there are so few Members here tonight. I suspect that it is because word has gone round, by text message from the Whips on both sides, that there is not going to be a vote. Most of our colleagues are probably either enjoying themselves on the Terrace or have gone home, when
	they should be in here debating this Bill. We could say the same for almost any piece of legislation that goes through the House.
	I mentioned in an intervention the fundamental question of international jurisdiction. If someone comes to this country from a jurisdiction in which they have been tortured, irrationally imprisoned or abused, or if it is likely that they would suffer such a fate if they went back, we have a clear duty of protection to them under international law. Under the procedures of anti-terror legislation, someone who is suspected of terrorist activity or of harbouring plans for such activity can be detained virtually indefinitely under immigration law. Under the memorandums of understanding that were made between the previous Prime Minister but one, Tony Blair, and a number of Governments, such people can be returned to jurisdictions that have not signed the United Nations convention on torture.
	I have a real problem with that. If we support the principles of international law and the international jurisdiction of conventions such as that one, we should carry them out to the fullest extent. We should not deport people to places where there is no protection of their rights under treaties that we have taken for ourselves. Just as when someone goes to prison, when an individual is accused of being a terrorist or of planning a terrorist activity, they do not stop being an individual and they do not lose all their rights. They do not stop being a citizen at that point.

Richard Fuller: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman’s point about our deportation of people to countries that could torture them. Does he agree that it is a serious omission in the Bill that the bail conditions imposed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will be able to remain at the levels set out in the control orders that are being lessened by the Bill? Should not that omission be corrected?

Jeremy Corbyn: Indeed so; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That matter should be looked at in great detail in Committee. I hope that the Bill will be greatly changed in Committee and that we will hear about those changes on Report. I hope we will move away from the principle of control orders and the conditions that he rightly says are associated with them. I understand that Liberty, whose briefing on this matter I have neither read nor seen, for which I apologise, describes these measures as “low-fat” control orders that have been dressed up to resemble something that they are not.
	I represent a mixed, inner-city community constituency, as do many other colleagues, and I am very proud to represent that area. The events of 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the Bush-led war on terror, the axis of evil speech and similar things have had an enormous effect on community relations. They have also generated a degree of Islamophobia within our society and continue to do so, which is a very serious matter. The anti-terrorism legislation and the arguments surrounding the Prevent strategy, like so many other things, play into that agenda.
	My borough suffered on 7/7: more people from my borough died than from any other borough—it was a dreadful, awful, terrible day. I do not believe, however, that counter-terrorism legislation that goes around the principle of the use of the criminal law or goes around
	the norms of parliamentary democracy and open justice will stop those things happening again. That whole process does not make us more safe; ultimately, it puts our society at greater risk and makes it more vulnerable.
	Although we are debating a change in the legislation and the Bill is presented as being the end of control orders, the reality is that we are being presented with a different form of control orders. I look forward to the Committee asserting itself when the details of the Bill are debated and improving it a great deal by removing the whole principle of control orders.
	Once we give away our powers to secret courts or give away accountability to secret services—I accept that only 48 control orders have been put in place—we are crossing a very big line. We should be very careful about doing that. Our job as Members of Parliament is to ask the awkward question; our job as MPs is to put very awkward questions to those employed by the state to look after law and order and protect us. Above all, our task is to ensure that our liberties are safe, our democracy is safe and that individuals will not be detained irrationally for a very long time on the basis of hearsay evidence that would simply not stand up in a criminal court. That is a bad thing for a democracy; it is a bad thing for us to do.

Dominic Raab: Like others, I would like to commend some previous speakers, particularly the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert).
	Confronted by the terrorist challenge, the previous Government resorted to presenting a rather crude and blunt trade-off between freedom and security. Too often, it undermined Britain’s tradition of liberty without eliminating or even substantially reducing the threat to this country. In that context, I welcome the huge strides the Home Secretary and fellow Home Office Ministers have taken to defend and restore our freedoms by abolishing ID cards, halving pre-charge detention, tightening stop-and-search powers and the other measures they have taken in protection of freedoms legislation. I believe that Ministers have decisively reassessed how state power is used to protect us.
	In many ways, if truth be told, the whole debate on control orders has been allowed to obscure the substantial progress made by this coalition and this Home Office. Nevertheless, the truth is that the control order regime presents a pernicious affront to our tradition of liberty. It undermines the most basic principle of British justice—of being innocent until proven guilty. Orders can be imposed on people who have not been found guilty of any criminal offence. That is wrong in principle, and control orders have proved to be an ineffective tool in practice. I shall come on to explain why I believe that to be the case.
	In fairness, TPIMs are not as draconian as the old regime and again I want to recognise Ministers’ efforts to improve the conditions imposed by the Bill. In truth, however, TPIMs are only marginally less draconian and are certainly no more effective than their predecessor—and that is not much of a trade-off either. Liberty notes in its briefing that TPIMs
	“mirror the most offensive elements”
	of control orders. Under clause 3, the Home Secretary must demonstrate “reasonable belief” of involvement in terrorism as opposed to the old standard of “reasonable suspicion'”, but a criminal sanction of this severity should require proof of criminal conduct—not hunches, not opinions, but proof.
	The potential restrictions on individuals set out in schedule 1 remain onerous—residency requirements, curfews, restrictions on communication and association, travel bans, electronic tagging and all the rest. Clause 5 appears to suggest a two-year limit for TPIMs, but they can be renewed if new terrorist activity is alleged. That is itself a worrying comment on the credibility of the new order as a counter-terrorism measure. Clause 21 retains the penalty of five years’ imprisonment for breach of an order.
	In one important respect, which has already been mentioned today, the proposed regime is worse than its predecessor. Control orders had to be approved annually by Parliament in recognition of their exceptional nature and the urgency of the circumstances in which they were introduced, which ensured regular parliamentary oversight, but TPIMs will not be subject to such parliamentary reviews. A temporary emergency measure will thus become permanent and entrenched, and we will have crossed a line. It is worth our asking, with that in mind, what we will gain from such an affront to our tradition of liberty and justice. What will be the security dividend from this trade-off of our freedoms?
	Of the 40 individuals formerly subject to control orders, seven absconded and five had their orders quashed by the courts. In 2009, each order cost the Home Office £135,000 to implement—quite apart from the costs of defending the orders from legal challenge and of policing. The number of control orders has halved in the last two years, from 20 to 10. Some will say that that shows that they are used only as a last resort, but in fact it demonstrates their irrelevance to the massive scale of the terrorist threat that we face. MI5 estimates that there are still about 4,000 terrorist suspects in the United Kingdom—10 controlees, 4,000 suspects. Let us not pretend that control orders have ever been anything more than the most flimsy and feeble of security safety nets.
	Control orders are not just of dwindling relevance; they constitute a distraction from robust law enforcement and are actually a negative. That is why I welcome the Home Secretary's renewed focus on the Prevent strategy. I would welcome further still measures to strengthen our deportation capacity, which has been undermined by judicial legislation resulting from article 8 of the European convention on human rights, via the Human Rights Act 1998. The massively inflated rights to family life now allow the majority of deportation orders to be frustrated. That has nothing to do with article 3 torture grounds, which I would stand up for. More specifically, as Lord Macdonald stated in his report on the counter-terrorism review, control orders are an “impediment” to prosecution and conviction because
	“controls may be imposed that precisely prevent those very activities that are apt to result in the discovery of evidence fit for prosecution, conviction and imprisonment”.
	The wider evidence is stark and clear. This country now has a gaping prosecutorial deficit. The number of convictions for terrorist offences has fallen by 90% in
	the last four years, despite all the legislative hyperactivity of the previous Government, despite all the hubris, and despite the exponential rise in the terrorist threat, whose existence I think we all accept. Yet conviction in court and locking up terrorists constitute the only guaranteed way of protecting the public.
	I find it worrying that we have heard so little about strengthening prosecution in real, core, concrete, tangible terms. We need a far more robust and proactive prosecution policy. We need to learn directly from experience abroad, particularly in Commonwealth countries such as the United States, Australia and Canada. We need much greater use of plea bargaining, although incidentally I do not see why the discount should be increased. I believe that if plea-bargaining were deployed effectively, it would almost certainly increase, not reduce, the number of dangerous people put behind bars. Indeed, that is the whole point of it.
	As others have said, we must also overcome entrenched bureaucratic inertia and lift the ban on the use of intercept evidence in court, thus ending Britain’s virtual global isolation and giving prosecutors an invaluable tool with which to secure convictions. I know from my experience of working at the Foreign Office on information co-operation with international war crimes tribunals, along with all the Departments and agencies in the United Kingdom, what the limits are and how intercept evidence can be used discreetly, carefully and competently, and I am convinced that we can overcome the objections that have been presented.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said that if we were to ask anyone in the United States, such as the FBI or the Deputy Attorney-General—I myself have talked to the counter-terrorism adviser in the George Bush White House—they would be aghast at the idea that intercept evidence could not be used as a powerful weapon to put more terrorists behind bars. It is absolutely critical. It is a mystery to me that we in this country have allowed so much surveillance of the ordinary law-abiding citizen, yet we adamantly and trenchantly oppose using intercept evidence to target prosecution against those engaged in terror.
	Lord Macdonald offered a very credible alternative to the control order regime, with restrictions linked to bail in the active pursuit of prosecution. I regret that his proposal was not taken up in place of the old regime, or, indeed, of the new one presented to us today.

Tobias Ellwood: The war on terrorism has defined the current generation, as the second world war did the generations of the ’30s and ’40s, and as the cold war cast a shadow over those of the ’60s and ’70s. Terrorism has existed before in all sorts of forms, of course; in the ’70s and ’80s, there was IRA terrorism, for example. The shadow of 9/11 still hangs over the current generation, however.
	The threat of terrorism affects every aspect of our lives. Every time we step on a train, we are reminded to be vigilant and watch out for suspicious bags. Every time we enter a Government building, we are obliged to have our bags—and, indeed, bodies—scanned. When we switch on the news, there will often be a report of another attack in one part of the world or another. It is
	therefore no surprise that we debate this subject and pass laws in this House with a view to containing or eradicating terrorism and protecting the public.
	Terrorism is not a cancer that we can surgically remove, however, or a trend that can be outlawed. Terrorism is a violent form of communication, usually involving the killing of innocent people by a private group or individual in such a way as to create a media spectacle and pass a message or place pressure on a Government, while at the same time gaining publicity for that terrorist group, cause or individual. We must tackle the ideology behind terrorism, as well as prevent the terrorist attack itself.
	Sadly, history has shown that Islamic radicalisation reached our shores a number of years ago. In 2002, the shoe bomber failed to bring down a transatlantic flight. In 2005, we had the 7/7 bombings, and just two weeks later there was a failed attempt to replicate that attack. In 2006, a transatlantic terror plot, which attempted to use 10 liquid explosives to blow up planes, was disrupted. In 2007, we had the attack at Glasgow airport, when two men driving cars full of propane rammed the main terminal building. Also in that year, two car bombs were discovered in the Haymarket, and, thankfully, disabled before they were detonated. In 2008, there was the Exeter café bombing by a radicalised 22-year-old, but, thankfully again, nobody was hurt. Terrorism has become part and parcel of our lives, therefore. What links all these events—and these are only the events that are in the public domain—is the deeply distorted interpretation of Islam that turns harmless citizens into radicalised recruits willing to cause other innocents harm.
	It is important to ask why Britain is prone to this sort of attack. What makes the United Kingdom more of a target than, say, Austria or Germany? These are difficult, and perhaps controversial, questions, but they must be asked. We can ask: did our involvement in overseas conflicts such as Iraq or Afghanistan increase the potential for such Islamist attacks? Yes, it undoubtedly did. It has made us more of a target. Whether we think that such conflicts are right or wrong, that is a fact and we must come to terms with it.
	Having weak immigration controls also makes us more of a target. If our borders are porous in some way, it makes it easier for those who wish us harm to get into this country to cause that harm. We also face a difficult question about our tolerance towards different cultures. If there is a lack of cohesion between different cultures, a failure of integration between those cultures in our communities and a lack of understanding of what it means to be British, that failure to bring communities together can lead to hostility in its own right. Given that so many Muslims live in this country and in the United States, we must ask why we have not seen the same radicalisation in the United States as we have seen in this country.
	Controversially, one could also say that the way in which the pendulum of political correctness has swung is involved here; we might ask whether we tackle these difficult events as harshly as we should. Demonstrations have taken place in various mosques over a number of years, yet because we are cautious and do not want to make too much of a song and dance we have perhaps not been tough enough to send out the message that
	such behaviour should not be tolerated. These are difficult questions, but if they are not posed in this House where else can they be raised?
	Developing a strategy to tackle this problem is complicated and it requires contributions from across Departments: the Ministry of Defence is kinetic and its contribution is about what we do in Afghanistan, first, to eradicate the extremism there and then to help stable democracy; the Department for Communities and Local Government has a role to play in encouraging forms of cohesion; the Cabinet Office is now responsible for cyber-security; the overseas aid budget should be targeted to help countries to tackle these issues themselves; and the Home Office has a role in focusing on prevention and security, which is what we are debating today.
	Such a strategy involves understanding the motives of terrorists, how they are trained, how they are recruited and how they are identified as potential killers. It involves providing better support to vulnerable groups, such as those who are in prison, those who are unemployed and the youth. It also involves putting increased emphasis on community cohesion and ensuring that funding goes to properly targeted groups, rather than to those very groups that wish us harm. As a number of hon. Members have said, such groups have been funded in the past and I am pleased that that has been brought to a stop.
	Such a strategy also involves the improved identification of those who might be targeted, which does require the assistance of universities and doctors. We need everybody’s assistance; we have a collective responsibility in our community to look after each other. Such is the scale of the problem we face that some individuals, including UK citizens, are successfully turned into potential terrorists. The Bill will play a small part in the wider strategy that deals with individuals who are known to be involved in terrorist activities but about whom the evidence is not yet sufficient to warrant a full conviction. We are talking about a small group of people—fewer than 50 or so—who cannot be deported but who are yet to be convicted. Our approach must be about making sure that we are aware of their movements, their accommodation and their travel, so that they are “looked after” in a way that means that they are unable to do harm in the future.
	Many hon. Members have discussed the Bill in detail so I will not repeat many of the comments that have been made, but it is worth saying in conclusion that just as warfare has had to adapt to the changes in the battlefield, so must our counter-terrorism technology develop. I welcome the Bill, as it refines our ability to combat terrorism. I have been told that I would be delighted to serve on the Committee, should I be called, so I recommend the Bill to the House and look forward to serving, if possible, on the Committee.

Stephen Phillips: It is an enormous pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). It has also been an enormous pleasure to listen to the contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	At the outset, I want to make it clear that the issues with which the Bill grapples are not, as I suspect many Members have found, necessarily easy. I have not found them easy. For my part, during my consideration of the
	measures proposed by the Government I have from time to time changed my mind, or at least changed the direction in which I thought I was travelling, before finally alighting on the position that I intend to set forth this evening.
	What, then, is the dilemma for all Members? On the one hand, it seems plain from the responses to the Government’s consultation that there is general agreement among the majority of those who offered their views that in the case of a very few individuals there is a continuing need for the Government to have access to the sort of powers proposed in this Bill to protect the public from potential harm. One simple reason for that, as the responses make clear and as I, at least, am persuaded, is that in the case of some of those very few individuals prosecutions are impossible for either security or legal reasons. By the same token, not every threat to national security is or has yet become a criminal offence. Are such threats to be ignored, as some would urge us to do? I venture to suggest not.
	On the other hand, the suggestion that the sort of powers that we see in this Bill should exist at all—they effectively permit the Executive to detain individuals without trial—is naturally abhorrent to Members of this House and is regarded as such on both sides, as it is by all right-thinking people. It is said with force that we now have, and that within the memory of this House we have always had, a system of open justice and it is legitimate to ask, as many Members have done, why in those circumstances we should make even one exception, no matter how carefully hedged about with safeguards, to the principles that have long underpinned our democracy and the rule of law in this country.
	The question, then, is how that dilemma is to be resolved. That is essentially the question faced by the House in deciding whether to give the Bill a Second Reading. Differing from hon. Members of all parties and some people outside the House who advocate the complete revocation of any system of civil measures that interferes with the rights of the individual, I have come to the view that what the Government propose, subject to the amendments that will no doubt be made in Committee, strikes the right balance for reasons that I shall come on to. That is, I accept, my judgment. It is my opinion, consistent with the position that my conscience dictates, but that is not to say—and I do not say—that it is the only view that it is possible to take. This is very much one of those issues where reasonable people may come to completely contrary conclusions and where Members have come to contrary conclusions. My task, if I have one at all, is to explain in the course of this debate how I have come to my conclusion and my reasons for having done so.
	The starting point—I suspect that all Members would agree that this should always be the starting point for any Government, but it is one which might perhaps have been lost sight of from time to time during the course of the debate—is that the primary duty of the state to its citizens is to keep them safe. National security and public safety are and must always remain the first duty of the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in her statement on 23 May 2011 and as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper),
	the shadow Home Secretary, acknowledged in her opening remarks in this debate. If one accepts, as I think one must, that that is the starting point, it must in my judgment follow that if there are circumstances in which those who threaten the United Kingdom from within her own borders cannot, for whatever reasons, adequately be dealt with by a system of open criminal justice, which I accept should remain the norm in the vast majority of cases, their rights cannot override those of the majority to the safety of their existence, which the Government are bound to protect.
	In one sense, of course, this is a question of degree. Is the derogation from the ordinary principles of the rule of law and the rights of the subject that this Bill entails justified given the threat that we know we face at the beginning of the 21st century? In my opinion—I stress again that it is my opinion and that others are driven to a different view by their consciences—it is. We have merely to look at some of the events that we have witnessed during the past decade, such as the bombings of 7 July 2005 in London, to know what may happen when the balance is poorly or inappropriately struck. Of course I do not for a moment suggest that the mere existence of the measures in the Bill—of TPIMs—or even of the existing regime of control orders can ensure that such events will never happen. However, if one wonders, as I do, whether future atrocities might be prevented by proportionate derogations from generally accepted minimum standards regarding the rights of the subject—derogations that can and must be kept to a minimum, as I think all Members accept—it is my belief that they might. It follows that the existence of a regime that is necessary to protect the public, such as that contained in the Bill, cannot be avoided given the world in which we live.
	The matter can be viewed in this way: many Members on both sides of the House will quite properly oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, or will at least have indicated that they will not give it a Third Reading in its current form. However, let me posit an eventuality that I hope will not occur—circumstances in which someone who might have been subject to a TPIM is instrumental in a future atrocity that results in our fellow citizens being maimed or killed. Would it, in those circumstances, be right that the Bill fell today or in future? I suggest not, for that would be to strike the wrong balance between the rule of law and the first duty of the Government, which I have already outlined.
	I accept that none of this is easy. My view, I am perfectly prepared to accept, may be wrong. It may even, as the courts will be able to inquire given that there will now be no possibility of derogation from the law relating to the rights of the subject, be unlawful, although I think not as the Bill has been carefully drawn. However, it is the view to which I am driven by a consideration of the issues I have outlined and by the horrendous possibility of being wrong and, in being wrong, of failing to prevent a potential terrorist outrage.
	The second argument that drives me to support the Government’s proposals and therefore to lend my support to the Bill’s Second Reading is the very fact that there are certain rights that I and the vast majority of people consider to be inalienable, the most important of which is the right to life. That this right is inalienable seems to me naturally to entail the proposition that it should, by the nature of the law as it should be framed, be protected—if
	necessary at the expense of other lesser rights, which are not necessarily inalienable. Schedule 1 identifies a series of measures that the Secretary of State may take, should the Bill become law, which would undoubtedly interfere with the second of those groups of rights. It enables the state to obstruct the liberty of the citizen, to oblige him or her to comply with the directions of those who exercise its authority and to disturb the free enjoyment of property rights. However, not one of those rights is, or at least should be, regarded as absolute and inalienable. The right to life and to security, in the sense of freedom from hurt or injury, is in a different category altogether. As the Bill makes clear throughout, particularly from the safeguards with which it is hedged, it is that right that is being protected and the other, lesser rights that are being obstructed. That cannot but indicate, as many Members on both sides have noted, that a balance is being struck. Whether it is the right balance will be a question that future historians will no doubt assess.

Henry Smith: My hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful argument about the balancing of rights. Does he feel that this consideration should be reviewed regularly to ensure that the balance remains correct in future?

Stephen Phillips: I can see that there is a powerful case for amending the Bill in Committee to introduce some annual review by Parliament, but there are countervailing arguments, some of which have been alluded to during the debate. The first of those arguments, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), is that with the whipping system being what it is, such an annual review may prove pointless. The second is that if the House forms a view in relation to TPIMs, which are not control orders, it will have reached a settled view, and that will not fade from parliamentary memory. I think that everyone on both sides of the House accepts that once the reasons why TPIMs or control orders need to exist have disappeared, this legislation should also disappear. In those circumstances, while I can see the case for an annual review, it is not something on which I have a conclusive view, and I look forward to debating it again in due course.
	Returning to whether it is right in principle for the Bill to strike the balance that it seeks to strike, what finally has driven me to the view that the Bill must continue its passage through the House is the fact that the arguments against the balance being struck at all either misinterpret or only interpret semantically and without regard to its content what the rule of law actually means. We have created for ourselves, as have most other nations, a system of justice that involves the open trial of individuals for those things that we characterise as wrongs that deserve punishment. That system, however, is a fabrication of the society in which we live—no more, no less. It is not the only system that man could devise, but it has been found over the years to be the best system, even though we must occasionally alter or change it so that it meets the needs of the times in which we live. This is such a time, so the Bill seeks to fashion a different system from the ordinary criminal justice system, and it does so because, in my judgment, it must, for reasons that I have given.
	Is the system contrary to the rule of law because it is different? No. It is contrary to the rule of law, if in any sense, because we say it is, yet the rule of law as created
	must be protected, as it answers so well to the circumstances of existence that we must not seek to undermine it any more than is necessary. Again, there is a balance to be struck—what is necessary is what is proportionate to the circumstances, and in my view that is the regime that the Bill seeks to create. The same cannot be said universally of the regime that will be repealed if and when clause 1 comes into force. While the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 sought to strike a necessary balance, in my judgment it struck the wrong balance, which is tacitly accepted by the Opposition Front-Bench team, given their acceptance that the control order regime was not necessarily the best way of dealing with the threat that the legislation that they introduced sought to deal.
	I know, as I have said before in the House, new as I am, that it is the Opposition’s duty to oppose, but for those of us who have sat through this debate in its entirety it has been odd to note the opposition from their Front-Bench team, but the consensus among Back Benchers on both sides of the House that the Bill should at least complete its Second Reading.
	The previous regime of control orders permitted the Government to derogate from the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill does not do so, which is progress. While I am no fan of the Human Rights Act, I accept that it includes welcome protections that have existed in our law for generations, even if consistently misinterpreted or over-interpreted by the Court in Strasbourg. The previous regime of control orders likewise provided a non-exhaustive list of the way in which the rights of the subject could be hindered. The Bill, by contrast, tells the Home Secretary precisely what she may do, circumscribed by Parliament. I know which I prefer and which meets the need to tackle the mischief at which the Bill is directed.
	The previous regime of control orders likewise allowed the Home Secretary powers overly and unnecessarily in effect to extinguish individual rights, the best example being the 16-hour curfew. The Bill, by contrast, limits the Home Secretary’s powers—again, always subject to review—to something which, to my mind, is more capable of justification, even though overnight detention orders require more definition. Most importantly, unlike the present regime, mere suspicion on the part of the state will no longer be enough to trigger the powers in the Bill—and rightly so. The Bill makes it clear that there must be reasonable belief that individuals can no longer be deprived of their rights merely on the basis of suspicion. Lawyers other than I have suggested this afternoon that there is little difference, but I disagree. Even if I am wrong, I am more content with a regime that requires some form of objective proof and justification than one that can be triggered merely on the basis of vague, subjective assertion on the part of the state.
	For these reasons, and many others which there is now insufficient time to develop further but which will undoubtedly be explored in Committee if the Bill goes forward tonight, it is my belief that this is the right Bill to address the dilemma that I posed at the outset and which the Government face in striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the obligation to protect all the citizens of this country. If the House divides tonight, the Government will therefore receive my support to give the Bill a Second Reading, as I believe they should receive the support of the remainder of the House.

Steven Baker: As I follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), I am reminded of something that I learned shortly after I arrived in the Chamber—that is, that some of the finest and most informative speeches are delivered after the glare of the media has departed from the Front Benches. I found his remarks very interesting, although I have not agreed with all of them.
	I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). Listening to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), I found myself disagreeing with him somewhat. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I think the threat that we face today is not the same as the threat that we faced during the cold war. We do not face total nuclear war or mutually assured destruction. During the cold war we did not capitulate our highest values. Instead, we sought to emphasise them. As my hon. Friend mentions the cold war, I hope the House will forgive me if I quote Reagan in 1964:
	“You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy?”
	I could go on, and I am sure some Members would enjoy it if I did. Just in the face of this enemy? No. Some values are higher than life itself.
	I particularly associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins). Like him, I have a large Muslim population in my constituency and I have come to be very fond of those fine people. I have found that we share a commitment to justice and to objective morality as the basis for our liberty. It is true that a very small number of my constituents have been convicted of terrorist atrocities, so I approach this subject with considerable care.
	As a gallant Member of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recognise in me a sense of missing the clarity of serving in the armed forces. When I first considered the subject of the prevention of terrorism, I had just come out of university and the law of armed conflict in the UK and carrying firearms in the UK was being explained. It was made perfectly clear to us, fresh out of university, that the correct response to a terrorist caught in the act of committing a terrorist atrocity was a bullet—a single aimed shot at the centre of the chest. We were shocked and appalled when that instructor explained to us that he would be disappointed if any member of the armed forces did not take the opportunity offered by the rules of engagement to shoot a terrorist.
	That is only the first category of ways we might deal with terror. The second is that which we are all perhaps more used to—investigation, arrest, charge, conviction, imprisonment. I think the mood of the House is that we would all prefer that standard criminal process to be followed. The final category seems to be the strange twilight which we have entered, the twilight of semi-guilt and shadow justice, where we cannot bring people to prosecution, yet we fear them. What has happened to us?
	Some words are so powerful and represent concepts so important that people will lay down their very lives for them—words like “liberty” and “justice”, inseparable
	words, hooray words, which unfortunately, as I have discovered in my political journey, are subject to interpretation and political conflict. But our forebears laid down their lives for liberty and justice. I was asked once on my journey here if there was one thing I could change about the state that Britain finds itself in, what would it be? Before I was asked, I thought I would say we should leave the European Union, but on reflection and having read the brilliant book by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, “The Assault on Liberty”, I found myself thinking briefly and saying, “I would repeal control orders.”
	Control orders disgust me. They represent the capitulation of our highest values in the face of cowardly enemies. We should not tolerate them, so like some of my hon. Friends, I welcome clause 1. Clause 1 is a glorious and joyful clause, perhaps the finest I have seen in the House.
	We face, we are told, a serious and sustained threat. I find myself returning to Pitt. We have come a long way since 1783 when he said:
	“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
	I might go less far, but I would say that the response to fear and to threat is not the abandonment of our highest values; it is courage. It is to reach deep within ourselves and to find the courage to face down cowards. That is what I wish the Government would do.
	I meet clauses 2 to 27 and the eight schedules with profound misgivings, but I can hardly vote against them as they represent a move in the right direction. The shadow Home Secretary, although offering us a confused analysis of the Bill, has said that they water down control orders, and I think that a good thing. Lord Macdonald said that this measure is
	“an unmistakeable rebalancing of public policy in favour of liberty”.
	I welcome that, and I will be supporting the Government tonight, but with a very, very heavy heart.
	Finally, I should like to quote Benjamin Franklin:
	“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
	I wish that we did not face such choices, but we do. We should reach within ourselves for that courage to face these fears, these threats, and move forward, keeping our values.

Richard Fuller: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who said that the best speeches tended to come towards the end of a debate. As probably one of the last speakers I am about to show that that hypothesis is not always correct. How can I possibly match up to a Member who quoted not only Benjamin Franklin, but William Pitt and good old Ronald Reagan, in his speech in defence of his views on control orders today?
	It was interesting earlier to hear the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) describe the original debates that went on until 4 am. I can imagine that at that time the Benches here would have been full with Members debating this important issue of liberty. We look around today and we see a lot more green Benches than people. Perhaps that is because most hon. Members
	are at ease with providing and continuing these regulations and powers for the Executive, and perhaps that is to be welcomed. But I think that ease comes largely because of our fear of the worst if those powers were taken away. I am not sure that that is the best way for us to set our laws, so I am not at ease with what is being proposed here today.
	We have heard today from people who are learned in law and people with experience of making these tough decisions in the Executive. I have neither of those things, so I come from a simpler point of view, which is that in England we should not lock people up without telling them why. In supporting this legislation today, we are essentially denying that statement. It has been said that we should not trust all Home Secretaries—perhaps not all Home Secretaries—but I certainly trust and have faith in the current Home Secretary. She has brought a skill and effectiveness to an extremely difficult brief and has impressed Members on both sides of the House. As many hon. Members have said, the Home Secretary understands and bears the weight of more knowledge and has more access to knowledge and people with knowledge than we do ourselves.
	The context for what is being proposed essentially stems from the events of the last 10 years. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) recounted some of those, from the rise of radical ideology, through the nurturing of terrorism, the convulsions after 9/11, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks here on UK soil and those attacks that have been prevented. Those are indeed mighty issues for the state to handle, and I do not doubt the sincerity of Governments of any colour in how they wished to handle them. Those challenges certainly demanded a robust approach, but one that should have preserved our core values and freedoms, because they are beacons for a wider world that yearns for the freedoms that we have. We have a responsibility beyond these shores to ensure that, in setting our laws, we set an example that we wish other countries to follow. That should be the highest of examples we can set.
	The previous Government’s response may now be judged to have been overreach and their actions to have done too much damage to our precious freedoms and to have been in some respects ineffective or counter-productive. Those measures included detention without trial, secret courts, special attorneys, hidden evidence, the imposition of high levels of restriction on people who were never charged and did not know the case against them, forced relocation, internal exile and the transfer of judicial authority to the Executive branch. We were told, “Don’t worry, because they are all temporary emergency measures, so they are okay.” Well, in my view they were never okay, and as the years passed they seemed less and less temporary.
	For this Government, the test for how to change the legislation had to be set higher. The Bill before us declares it as such:
	“A BILL TO Abolish control orders”.
	As many hon. Members have said, it would have been fine if it had stopped there, but it went on to state that it would also
	“make provision for the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures.”
	There we get into the weighing up of the freedoms on one side and the prevention of harm on the other. The details do not live up to the billing. In the absence of my
	right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I must ask: when did we shift away from fundamental challenge based on principle? When did our assertion of centuries-old principles of English justice succumb to one more round of Executive caution? For me, there must be good, specific reasons behind the rationale for each measure and specific examples of their effectiveness. That will be the challenge in Committee and, if it is not met there, when the Bill comes back on Report, because general statements will not help. They will lead us to similar mistakes that we now see that the previous Government, even with the best intentions, may have made in their legislation.
	I have two concerns, one of which I will talk about for most of my speech and the other I will mention briefly. My main concern to address to the Minister is the omission of the immigration bail conditions imposed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Control orders were originally intended for UK citizens and non-UK citizens, but now they are exclusively for UK citizens. At the end of 2006, 18 people were on control orders, nine of whom were non-UK citizens. At the end of 2010, 10 people were on control orders, all of whom were UK citizens. My question to the Minister is this: have SIAC bail conditions been used as a proxy for control orders? Why are they not included in this review to bring those conditions to the same level as the Government now propose for control orders? SIAC bail conditions will still permit forced relocation, forced curfews, monitoring with the same level of secrecy and the lack of access, all without any charges being brought. They belonged in the Bill, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister why they are not there.
	I will bring an example to the attention of the House. We have heard about CD and about AM, but I would like to talk about Y—Mustapha Taleb. I read about him in the book “Ricin”. Ricin was one of those footnotes in the approach to the Iraq war, with the “ricin plot”, or, some would say, the “ricin plot that never was”.
	Mustapha Taleb came to the UK in 2001, having been tortured in his home country of Algeria. He was arrested in 2003 as part of the “ricin plot”, taken to court, tried and found not guilty of all charges. He was arrested again in 2005, after the 7/7 attacks, and SIAC imposed immigration bail conditions on him. Those conditions have been in place effectively for the six years subsequent to that point, so when people talk about one year or two years, they ought to understand that people in this country now have been living under conditions as severe as control orders for the past six years—and there is no relief for them in the Bill.
	What does that say about British justice—forced relocation, imposed curfews, the monitoring of all communications and a denial of freedom for six years? For what? We do not know. Mustapha does not know, he has not been charged; his lawyers do not know, they have not seen the evidence; and I do not know why those conditions are not being relieved in the Bill. I strongly urge the Home Secretary to accept, and hope that she will do so in Committee, an amendment to bring them into the same form as control orders.
	My second point, and quickly, is on temporary versus permanent. I mention it not only because I support the notion of many hon. Members that a review each year would be helpful, but because, having listened to the debate, it is quite clear that when someone goes from the Opposition Benches to the Government Front Bench
	the intention, the principle and the idealism are lessened—and lessened to the point of extinction. That position may well be right, but it is important that we challenge it every year here, where those voices of idealism can still be heard, even if today they make up a minority of the voices who were here six years ago. They still deserve to be heard every year on the matter.
	I have great confidence in our Home Secretary and, of course, understand that as a Back Bencher I have only partial access to the information that she and Ministers have. I do believe, however, that we have missed an opportunity with this Bill to restore English liberty to its highest levels of respect. I urge the Government to consider a sunset clause and to align immigration bail conditions with the new control orders.
	In the case of Mr Taleb, I just quote the members of the jury who acquitted him. When the SIAC conditions were put in place, they subsequently said:
	“As three ordinary members of the public we have had our eyes opened to such an unfair and unjust sequence of events orchestrated by the authorities that we feel compelled to speak out. This is contrary to anything we thought could be possible in a democratic, free society. Since January 2003, ‘Y’”—
	Mustapha Taleb—
	“has been persecuted by our government beyond all realms of imagination.”
	I urge the Minister to listen to that and to look for further changes.

Bob Stewart: May I first apologise to the House? I was present for the opening speeches, but I have been chairing the first 1968 dinner of the all-party armed forces group, 1968 being the only year when a British soldier, sailor or airmen has not died in combat. I apologise to the House for not being present for most of the debate. I apologise also if I repeat any arguments that my hon. Friends on both sides of the House might have made while I have been absent.
	We are all aware of our first duty: to protect the people of our country. Getting that right is not a matter of politics—of one side of the House or the other. We must have a bipartisan approach to something as important as that, and it is our duty to get it right. Terrorists have no such duty. They adhere to no rules or laws whatsoever. I once spoke to a Mujahedeen terrorist and asked him what he was about. He said, “My aim is to frighten my enemies so much that they do whatever I want them to do.” We must bear in mind that that is a terrorist aim. The old Stalinist maxim—I think it was Stalin who said it—is “Kill one, frighten 10,000.” Our laws are designed to stop this happening. The terrorists aim to kill. Our security forces, as many people in all parts of the House know, want to kill nobody. They do not want to inconvenience anyone, either. They have to act within the law; terrorists do not. We all know that our security forces often operate in metaphorical handcuffs because they are tied by laws that do not apply to terrorists. In a way, terrorists operate freelance.
	It is our duty to make fair, democratic, decent law. We need to balance the risks to the public, assistance to our security forces and, indeed, the human rights of terrorist suspects, because they are not guilty until they are proven to be guilty. This is the essence of today’s debate.
	Have control orders been too severe? Can their conditions be lessened without additional risk to the public, while perhaps increasing assistance to the security forces who are trying to stop terrorist operations at the same time as making sure that our decent traditions are upheld?
	I quite like clause 2. Under clause 2, restrictions are imposed à la carte. They are not blanket restrictions; they are designed for particular instances. They are flexible and allow for more severe measures if necessary. The people in authority determine what those measures are in a balanced way because their primary duty is to keep society safe. They also have to maintain civil liberties. I am mindful that in the United Kingdom everyone is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. I like the idea that someone who is not yet proven guilty can live as decent a life as is possible, but under control if we are worried about them. I like the idea that they can continue to work or study, under control if necessary. I am reminded, however, that seven out of 45 people on control orders have absconded—15%. We must not design a law that allows that percentage to increase.
	I think that what we call TPIMs are better—just. The director general of the Security Service is apparently content with the change, but I suspect that that is largely because he or she will get increased resources in order to carry out surveillance given that the aim is to try to get these people into court as fast as possible so that we can determine whether they are guilty or innocent, which is a principle of our law. I have been part of a surveillance operation in my time. Surveillance is very manpower intensive and costly. The operation that I was involved in required 12 soldiers, and that is just the minimum. There have to be back-up people as well. That is just for the surveillance of one person. It is therefore unsurprising that the Bill suggests that there will be more resources for surveillance. I am up for that. Evidence is difficult to obtain. It is particularly difficult to obtain when one closely observes someone so that they cannot move. In a way, let them have enough rope to hang themselves. Let us watch what they do, make a decision and get them into court, which is what we all want. I was worried to learn that two terrorist suspects were on control orders for four years and then let go. That does not seem right to me.
	I support the change from control orders to TPIMs—just. TPIMs have been called control orders-lite. People can call them what they like. I want us to have the most effective system to protect our society from people who want to do it harm. I want to ensure that the people investigating suspects have as many advantages as possible. Of course, Members from all parts of the House want to ensure that suspects have every opportunity to prove their innocence. The Bill will provide more resources for surveillance—great, I am up for that. The Bill, if and when it passes through this House and the other place, will have a duty to enhance public protection; to aid those who are charged to put away terrorists who aim to do us, our families and our friends harm; and to maintain the rights of suspects under a decent, civilised and democratic system. That is what this is all about and I hope that all parts of the House agree with that.

Gerry Sutcliffe: This has been an important debate and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the sincerity with which
	they have delivered their speeches on this important issue. We have had contributions from the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), and the hon. Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker), for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). We heard a range of viewpoints, from those who think that control orders have no place in our society to those who feel that we must have something in place to deal with the small number of people who cause the immense problems that we have. As has been said, there have been 46 control orders over the six years in which they have been in place.
	I think all hon. Members agreed that the safety and security of our nation should be the priority for any Government, and that that should rise above party political objectives, ambitions and gains. Perhaps, therefore, I should get the nasty business of politics out of the way at this point. We know why this Bill is here: it is a compromise between the two viewpoints that exist in the coalition. That is not just my point of view, because the hon. Member for Cambridge said that unless the Bill is changed substantially, he may not be able to vote for it on Third Reading. Clearly it is a compromise, but putting the politics to one side, we have to consider the details. Our view is that the new TPIMs regime is very similar to the control order regime that has been in place. I know that in his response tonight, and in his busy time in Committee, the Minister will take on board a lot of the viewpoints of hon. Members of all parties, and their concerns about the Bill’s various clauses.
	The core reason why we are discussing this matter is that terrorism affects our country not only here at home but abroad, because unfortunately many of our citizens have been killed right across the world by terrorists who do not respect or believe in the sanctity of life. We all agree that we must applaud and acknowledge the work of our security services in protecting us. They have prevented atrocities from taking place at a more alarming rate.
	I do not wish to attack any hon. Member’s integrity or the views that they have expressed. Having served as a Home Office Minister, I know the pressure that the Home Secretary and her ministerial team are under because of the information that they have and we do not. I know that in taking their decisions, they have to weigh up all the issues of which we cannot be aware.
	Vigilance is always required in our position on terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles reminded us of the context of the current situation. We still have a “severe” threat alert, which is one level down from an imminent attack, so the country has to be vigilant. That is why the debate about the rights of the individual compared with the security of the many is important. She set out the background of why the control order regime was introduced. The debate about restoring the rights of the individual as against those of
	the majority is difficult, but it is the duty of the Government to err on the side of caution. That was why we introduced the control order regime.
	We know that the Bill retains many items from the old regime. It retains closed hearings, and sanctions will still be imposed on terrorist suspects outside the criminal justice system. Groups such as Liberty are unhappy and have called the new TPIMs regime control orders-lite.
	We need to consider in great detail the issues that hon. Members have raised. I was impressed by what the hon. Member for Keighley, who comes from the same area as me, said about the impact of 2001—not only the atrocities that took place but their effect in our communities in Bradford and Keighley. He was right that most right-minded people want the same things in life, but people felt threatened and frightened by different viewpoints and different ways of doing things. The Home Secretary talked about the Prevent strategy, and I am concerned about the different ideas about what Britishness is and how people from different backgrounds in our communities understand it.
	The hon. Gentleman was right that in Bradford, particular attention was given to integration between the many communities, but there is anger among the Muslim community about some of the things that we in the west do. On a recent visit to Azerbaijan I heard about the problem with the Nagorno-Karabakh territory, on which there are outstanding UN resolutions that need to be enforced. There are also outstanding resolutions on Kashmir. Some of the Muslim community feel that our way of dealing with things does not recognise their interests elsewhere in the world. Rightly, people have different viewpoints and disagreements. That does not make them terrorists, and it is important to understand that people in our communities have different viewpoints.
	The hon. Members for Keighley and for Beckenham said that the whole community needs to own this legislation. We must take party politics out of this. The whole of our community needs to understand why we need such regimes. Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer, said that control orders were a necessary evil.
	The hon. Member for Bedford said that the original intention of control orders was to deal with foreign nationals who, for a variety of reasons, could not be deported, but that more UK citizens are now under control orders. However, the House should recognise what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said because of his experience as an ex-Home Office Minister and an ex-Northern Ireland Minister—he has great experience of listening to the security services. He said that there was no book on the shelf to tell people what to do, and that the policy evolved and developed. He also rightly acknowledged that the debate creates great tension between the rights of the individual and the rights of the majority.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North has been consistent in his view that the rule of law should apply all the way through, and nobody has scrutinised counter-terrorism Acts more than he has.
	It is perhaps right to review the situation after six years, but my right hon. Friend raised concerns about the overnight residency measures. In Committee, the Minister will have to come up with a definition of “specified residence”. What do we mean by electronic communications? What about the rules on disclosure of evidence?
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that the Bill did not go far enough. His view is that there needs to be greater freedom. He made the civil liberties argument, and spoke of exclusions, disclosure and the time frame of prosecutions. We all believe that we need prosecutions; the question is how to get them. How do we use information that is otherwise unaccessible? My right hon. Friend asked whether information from other countries would dry up if those countries thought that it would come out in open court. That is a realistic possibility, and we must consider it.
	We must ensure that the control order review group is in place. We also need to consider mental health, torture and so on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles tried to put us on the right course when she spoke of the need for consensus based on evidence, and put that in the context of the threats that we face.
	None of us wants to be involved in such difficult decisions or in considering the threats that individuals pose, but the reality is that we must do so for the security and safety of our nation. The hon. Member for Newark, who is a long-standing supporter of civil liberties, set out what happens when the state gets involved in too much detail and used the example of internment in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire was very clear that he thinks that control orders have no place here and that the Bill is a rotten compromise.
	The Opposition will ensure that we hold the Government to account in Committee. We will raise the issues of funding and resources. Will the Minister tell us whether the resources will be spent on surveillance or on prosecutions, which hon. Members raised earlier? We will look at a great number of the measures in the Bill in Committee, but we want to support the Government. The hon. Member for Beckenham was right about the need to ensure consensus, but it is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account. We will do so in Committee, and we look forward to that process.

James Brokenshire: We have had a constructive, serious and sober debate on this significant issue, and I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to it. I apologise for the fact that, in the nine minutes that I have left to speak, I will not be able to respond in detail to all the points that have been raised, but they have certainly been listened to carefully. The debate has shown that hon. Members are committed to ensuring that we have the right legislation in place to deal with terrorism. We might, of course, disagree on some of the details, but there is a great deal of common ground between us.
	It is clear that the threat from international and domestic terrorism is as serious as any that we have faced at any time, and that it is unlikely to diminish in the foreseeable future. The threat remains real and severe, and it is the duty of the Government to deal with it. It is essential that we look to the police and the security services to assist us in that regard, and I pay tribute to their work in keeping us safe and secure. In
	the context of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), which were amplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I also pay tribute to the work of our armed forces overseas to provide that safety and security and to uphold the values that we hold dear.
	We all understand the importance of the issues, and know how corrosive the threat of terrorism can be. Some hon. Members will have had more direct and, sadly, more personal experience of terrorism than others. There is no doubt that all of us in the House are steadfast in our condemnation of those who seek to destroy our way of life through violence. In providing the police and others with the tools that they need to deal with terrorism, we must take great care not to throw away the civil liberties that are at the core of our society. The ancient values of the rule of law and respect for individual liberties are the very things that terrorists seek to destroy, and protecting them is at the core of the Government.
	This has been an interesting debate, in which a range of issues has been discussed. There has also been a feeling that we wished we were not here, and that it was not necessary to put in place measures such as these. Comments to that effect have been made on both sides of the House. Difficult decisions must be taken, however, as the contributions from the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) underlined. We must also protect our principles and values, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker), for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) pointed out.
	The Government set up a comprehensive review of the key counter-terrorism powers, the purpose of which was to correct the imbalance between security powers and personal freedoms and to ensure that our main counter-terrorism powers were focused, necessary and proportionate. It was from that review that the measures proposed in the Bill came about. Legislation, while important, is only part of our approach to terrorism, however. The threat from international and Northern Ireland-related terrorism is serious and will not diminish any time soon. In responding to that threat, we cannot take risks with public security. We must therefore continually adapt our approach to the evolving threat that we face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said. That is why the Bill needs to be seen in the context of the Government’s wider strategy on terrorism and protecting the public. The strategy, known as Contest, is being reviewed to ensure that it remains effective and targeted against the threats that we face. A key part of the strategy, Prevent, has been discussed in the House earlier today, and was relevant to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins).
	Prevent is only one strand of the Government’s approach, however. Strengthening aviation security and increasing our efforts to deport foreign terrorists under the deportation with assurances programme will also pay dividends in making this country safer. We have also ensured that the UK retains its capability to tackle the terrorist threat in a tight financial climate by providing the police and the security and intelligence agencies with significant resources over the next few years.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

James Brokenshire: I apologise, but I will not as I have a lot to get through in the five minutes remaining to me.
	We are committed to prosecuting or deporting terrorists wherever possible, and our starting point will always be that terrorists should be behind bars; the rule of law and getting people to face criminal prosecution before the courts is where we want to be. That is very much our preferred option and I would certainly like to assure all hon. Members of that. It is widely accepted across the House, however, that there are and will be for the foreseeable future a very small number of highly dangerous individuals whom we can neither successfully prosecute nor deport. No responsible Government could allow such individuals to go freely about their terrorist activity.
	Other steps should be advanced and we need to take them forward. That is why the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark about post-charge questioning is so relevant. That is why the Government intend to make the necessary PACE—Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—code changes after a statutory consultation before the summer recess.
	Points were made about plea bargaining, and the review of counter-terrorism powers said that further work would be undertaken to ensure that full use is made of the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to increase the evidence and intelligence dividend from defendants and prisoners in terrorism cases.
	Intercept evidence was also raised. The lawful interception of communications plays a critical role in tackling serious crime and protecting the British public. Almost all the highest priority counter-terrorist operations and many other serious crime investigations involve the use of intercept. Hon. Members will be aware from the written ministerial statement of 26 January of the ongoing work of the advisory group of Privy Councillors. We will report back on their work in due course.
	Mention was made of the special advocates and the disclosure of secret information. The Green Paper is being worked on and we are very cognisant of the issues relevant to it as well as of the many cases relating to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford mentioned the role of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the use of secret information in that context. We are considering these issues and the key concerns that have been flagged up, and we will come forward with the Green Paper in due course. I should add the assurance that we will continue to make progress on the issue of deportation. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned the assurances required on that issue, and we take our international obligations extremely seriously when it comes to assessing the pertinent issues.
	Let me quickly address the point made about safety and security by the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). The Government believe that the package of TPIM restrictions strikes the right balance between protecting the public and protecting the rights of individuals who have not necessarily been charged with any offence. The director general of the Security Service has told the Home Secretary that he considers
	the changes as providing an acceptable balance between the needs of security and civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates risk.
	Difficult issues arise here, and we are very cognisant of them, while remaining focused on the need to deal with the small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, yet who despite our best efforts cannot be prosecuted. That is why I say, regrettably, that the measures in the Bill are required to deal with this continuing threat in a more targeted and more tightly defined way. That is what we believe is appropriate; that is what we believe is necessary; that is what I think best reflects the needs of this country in giving that continued assurance. This Bill gives effect to those objectives. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

TERRORISM PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION MEASURES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A( 7 )),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 July.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	Question agreed to.

TERRORISM PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION MEASURES BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation  signified .
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)( a )),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—(Jeremy  Wright .)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will take motions 5 to 7 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Customs

That the Export Control (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 (S.I., 2011, No. 1127), dated 14 April 2011, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 April, be approved.

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Electoral Registration Data Schemes) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 26 April, be approved.
	That the draft Electoral Registration Data Schemes Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 26 April, be approved. —(Jeremy Wright.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

European Contract Law for Consumers and Business

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11961/10, a Green Paper from the European Commission on policy options for progress towards a European Contract Law for consumers and businesses; supports the Government’s response to the Green Paper, sent to the European Commission on 10 February 2011; and agrees with the terms of that response.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	Question agreed to.

Bob Russell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you have received any requests from Defence Ministers to come to the House to try to clarify reports in the press of proposals to cut the wages of members of 16 Air Assault Brigade and the Parachute Regiment in general. Today, 16 Air Assault Brigade had its welcome home parade through Colchester, and tomorrow, at Bury St Edmunds cathedral, there will be a service of thanksgiving which will also be a memorial service for those who have just fallen in Helmand province. Do you agree, Mr Speaker, that Defence Ministers should come and explain what is going on? Are they seriously proposing to cut the wages of members of the Parachute Regiment?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks me a straightforward question, to which the straightforward answer is no.

CARE SERVICES (OLDER PEOPLE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Stephen Lloyd: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) begins his speech, may I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly?

Stephen Lloyd: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	As an officer in the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people and an active member of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, and as the Member of Parliament representing Eastbourne and Willingdon, an area that contains nearly 25,000 people over the age of 65, I called for this debate because the current system of care for older people is in crisis. The recent awful and shocking exposé by the “Panorama” programme is a desperate indictment of the worst in care provision, but it would be a naive mistake to believe that there are no other examples of bad practice out there. The growing age profile means that any Government will face difficult challenges for many years to come, and despite the growing demand, care provision has faced years of austerity with almost no net spending increase.
	There are currently 291,000 people in residential and nursing homes in the United Kingdom, along with 6 million carers who allow people to live in their own homes. That means that an extremely large proportion of the United Kingdom’s population is directly affected by care service provision. Those who work in social care, or who care for someone on a voluntary basis, are the backbone of our society. They are the unsung heroes whose voices often go unheard, not least because they are simply too preoccupied with the enormousness of the task in hand.
	A number of my colleagues who are present this evening will probably focus on several areas of care that affect older people, but I will focus mainly on dementia and on care service provision for dementia sufferers. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He mentions the increased demand resulting from an older population, but does he agree that we are starting from a very low base? In Portsmouth there are 1,000 people with dementia who have no access to services. It is necessary not just to improve the quality of services that people are already receiving, but to give people access to services in the first place.

Stephen Lloyd: I agree. My hon. Friend’s important intervention is relevant to one of the key issues with which I shall deal in my speech. Not only have the dementia figures risen hugely over the past few years—and they will clearly continue to rise—but there are still many tens of thousands of people with dementia throughout the UK for whom there is no provision whatsoever.
	Let me put some of the figures into perspective. There are currently 750,000 people with dementia in the UK, and the number is set to rise to over 1 million in the next 15 years. One in three people in the UK over the age of 65 will die with dementia. People with dementia are significant users of both health and social care services. For example, people over 65 with dementia are currently using up to one quarter of hospital beds at any one time. That is an enormous problem.

Tracey Crouch: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. We have served together for some time now on the all-party group on dementia, and we have spoken on many occasions about the impact of dementia patients on primary health care. Does he agree that one way of addressing the problems of dementia patients receiving care in hospitals is by making sure that the professionals on the wards have mandatory training?

Stephen Lloyd: That is an important point. My partner is a community matron, and a wee while ago I made a rather foolish comment by asking why, with all the skills she and her colleagues have, they do not cover dementia as well. She gave me very short shrift, and emphasised, in her splendid way, “Stephen, dementia care is a very specific need. We all need more and better training on it, and also, to be honest, we need more specialist dementia nurses.” I certainly agree that it is essential that there is training for all professionals dealing with dementia.
	The exponential growth of this debilitating condition is a result of the growing age profile. Today, we are dying in our 80s. That is a good thing of course, as many older people lead full and productive lives, but it also brings its own set of challenges, one of which is that one in six people over the age of 80 suffer from dementia.
	I am grateful that the coalition Government have stated their commitment to the national dementia strategy. I have had meetings on this issue with the Minister, so I am also grateful that he is present this evening. I also congratulate the Government on revising the implementation plan. Under this revised plan, dementia will be a major priority for the coalition, which I welcome, but I also look forward to hearing some of the specific detail.
	I remain very concerned about provision on the ground. In my constituency of Eastbourne, we are desperately short of specialised dementia day-respite provision, and even more so of overnight and longer term respite. The funding to my local county council has not kept up with demand. That has been the case over the last 10 to 15 years, so it is not a recent phenomenon, but as a result of funding restrictions East Sussex county council has had to close a couple of respite care centres over the past few years, and I know that there are similar situations across the country. To put it bluntly, we in Eastbourne need at least three to four times more specialist dementia respite care provision, and I suspect that, broadly, there is a similar shortage across England and Wales.
	This is not a new problem, and I am glad the coalition is recognising it by pledging an additional £2 billion. It is very significant that that extra money is being made available, especially in the current difficult times, so I am grateful for that, but I also want the detail, because I
	still have concerns about the pledges at the top not filtering down to the grass roots. Early diagnosis and intervention are essential to ensure taxpayers get the best value out of the substantial amounts the Government are spending on health and social care, and that will guarantee the best quality of life for dementia sufferers. This step will also reduce crisis admissions to hospital and release significant cost savings.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and I are members of the all-party group on dementia, and the Alzheimer’s Society has been tremendously helpful in providing support to our group. Recent evidence collated by the Alzheimer’s Society shows that only 40% of people with dementia have been given a formal diagnosis, and the figure varies considerably across the UK. Where people do receive a diagnosis, it often comes late on in their condition, limiting the choices that people with dementia and their carers can make.
	In addition to being given a diagnosis of dementia, people with the illness need to be able to access support and care early on in their condition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) was saying. Services for people with dementia are skewed towards those in crisis situations, and people in the acute and long-term care sectors. As I have indicated, there is a lack of provision of support and care for the people with dementia who live in their own homes.
	Despite the projection that more than 1 million people will have dementia by 2025, dementia research is severely underfunded in comparison with research into other major diseases such as heart disease or cancer. For example, the Government spend eight times less on dementia research than they do on cancer research. Not in a million years would I want to reduce the amount of money spent on cancer research but, as we all know from our constituencies, dementia is a time bomb ready to explode. I know that the Government are investing more on research but I want to hear some of the detail. Clearly more money must be spent on research into this condition, as developing new treatments has the potential to reduce significantly the number of people with dementia. For example, delaying the onset of dementia by five years would halve the number of deaths from the condition, thus saving 30,000 lives a year. I therefore welcome the coalition’s commitment—this was also a pledge in the Liberal Democrat manifesto—to prioritise dementia research within the health research and development budget, and I look forward to reading the Department’s plan to improve the volume, quality and impact of dementia research.
	The Dilnot commission, which is due to report next month, provides an opportunity to resolve the historic and unsolved question of whether, as a society, we are able and willing to support people to live well in later life. The Dilnot commission must propose a road map for the delivery of a long-term settlement on the question of who pays for care and one that delivers significant improvements in access and quality. The funding envelope for social care must be increased to meet the needs of our ageing population, including the increasing number of people with dementia.
	So what would I like to see happen? First, I wish to see a long-term settlement for social care that offers good quality care for people with dementia at a fair price, along with a set of guarantees about what people
	can expect to receive. As a starting point, I challenge the Minister by saying that the state should provide a minimum level of care and support for free. Guarantees about the care to be provided should include access to early intervention services, regular short breaks for carers and a guarantee that the care will be of high quality. One of the things to come out of recent research is that the earlier dementia is identified, and the earlier interventions are made and people with dementia are supported in a respite care background, the more the worse rate of dementia appears to be delayed—already we know that it is delayed by a good two or three years. So this is one of those things that really would save money in the long term.
	If we are to revisit the Health and Social Care Bill, as I believe we may well do very soon, I would also like to see something else that is important. I know that the Minister feels passionately about this, so I am glad to be pushing at an open door. I am talking about better joined-up working between health and social care. However many years ago it took place and for whatever reason, it was a catastrophe that we split social care from the NHS. That has been appalling because social care budgets have been trimmed repeatedly over the years. In Eastbourne, as in every constituency, the social care sector deals with the respite care provision and the money has been cut every year, whereas the NHS, where money has not been cut—a lot of investment has gone into the NHS in the past 15 to 17 years—is dealing with people with dementia right at the crisis stage. It is an incredibly inefficient way of dealing with a desperate illness and it does not make financial sense. Better joined-up working between health and social care is essential for people with dementia.
	I believe that integration of care pathways across health and social care services should also be considered a duty, similar to effectiveness, safety and quality, and should be applicable to all health bodies from the Secretary of State downwards. I recognise the important role that health and wellbeing boards could play in encouraging greater integration between health and social care and I strongly endorse their inclusion in the Bill. Health and wellbeing boards can also provide a strategic oversight for the development of local health and social care services and the proposed boards in the Bill must have a strong focus on dementia.
	Finally, we come to multi-disciplinary commissioning. Let me use my partner as an example again: she is a community matron and her job is to go out into the community and to help people, mostly older people, to retain their independence by living at home. A lot of her work involves liaising with social services, the primary care trusts and the acute trust and doing all the multi-disciplinary co-ordination that is so necessary. We need to bring it into commissioning. I am concerned that most GPs might not necessarily know enough about dementia to commission effective services, so it would be beneficial in my view if a range of health and social care professionals could also be involved. I am not against GP consortia in principle, but I merely want more professionals from the different areas of health and social care to be involved in the commissioning process, such as nurses, occupational therapists and old age psychiatrists.
	I suspect that we have all been touched personally by the impact of dementia on someone we love. In my family, two of my aunts had dementia and one still lives with it every day. It is a desperate illness that affects hundreds of thousands of people and it has an impact on millions. My aunt is an example: she is a lady who rode a scooter from Nairobi to Johannesburg and climbed Mount Kilimanjaro in the ’50s. She is an amazing, great woman who was a teacher for 50 years in east Africa. The dementia she has now is desperately sad—thankfully not so much for her, but for all the family around her. It is a desperate illness that affects many people and it is not going away any time soon. As a nation, we need to move up a gear. We need to get better at providing care for dementia sufferers and their families and we need to do it now.

Paul Burstow: Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd)on securing the debate and setting out the issues so clearly, as well as for his work as an officer of the all-party group on dementia. I suspect that many of his colleagues in the Chamber listening to the debate have been inspired to be here by their association with that group.
	Social care is seldom in the news for good reasons and my hon. Friend was right to begin by referring to some of the most recent scandals that the House discussed earlier today, not least the terrible abuse at Winterbourne View. As I said earlier, the events that took place in that hospital were appalling and, as I explained, I am determined to do everything I can to ensure that the lessons are learned, understood and acted on swiftly.
	My hon. Friend has painted a fairly bleak picture of social care, and although I am not quite so gloomy I am not complacent about what needs to be done. The system of social care that the Government inherited last year was and still is fragile. The legal framework that governs social care was written for a bygone era and is now so complex and byzantine as to leave people confused and frustrated. The way that we pay for long-term care is a classic wicked issue of politics—one that is occasionally taken out of the “Too difficult to deal with” drawer, only to be looked at and shoved firmly back in again—because most people in this country are blissfully unaware of how social care is paid for. They are blissfully unaware of the fact that it is not free, that it never has been free and that many people face the potential of catastrophic costs when they come into the social care system.
	My hon. Friend has rehearsed his views about what future funding arrangements might look like. I am clear that there is no perfect solution—no solution that can possibly please and satisfy everyone—but we need to strive to reach a settlement that requires trade-offs but also secures the necessary change and sustainability of a system for the future. That is why the Government have been quick to put in place the building blocks of a reform system—quickly establishing the Dilnot commission to recommend reform of how we pay for care and support, and securing the current system by committing an extra £2 billion for social care by 2014.
	My hon. Friend talked about the importance of integration. I can tell him that the unprecedented transfer of NHS resources to social care, which this year amounts
	to £650 million, is indeed fostering new relationships between local government and the NHS to allow the greater integration and closer working that are essential to enable us to deliver better services for the public whom we are here to serve. He also talked about the schism between health and social care. It is worth noting that that schism was set into the very foundations of the NHS under the National Health Service Act 1946 and then the National Assistance Act 1948, so we have to look back a long way to see when that split occurred.
	The main focus of my hon. Friend’s remarks has been the challenge of dementia. Each year, about 65,000 people are diagnosed with dementia, which touches the lives of many families, as he has demonstrated by relating his experience with his two aunts. The number of dementia cases is set to rise by 38% over the next 15 years. That rise reflects the fact that many more of us are living for longer, but we should not cast that in the language of consternation. We should see it as a cause for celebration that so many more people are living for so much longer; the key is making sure that in those extra years we have quality of life as well. That is why we need the NHS, as well as social care and society, to rise to the challenge.
	Let me offer some hope to my hon. Friend. We can do much better for people with dementia and their carers. In coming to office, I took the view that we should stick with the existing national dementia strategy and deliver it in full, because at our heart the coalition Government are committed to the notion of greater personalisation so that people have real control over the services that affect their lives and so that carers have a much bigger stake in the system. As he has said, commissioning is key to delivering that vision and the objectives in the strategy. Good commissioning can make a huge difference.

Tracey Crouch: The Minister mentions carers, who have a very difficult job—none more so than those who care for people with dementia. Next week is carers week. Will he join me in congratulating those who care for people with dementia, which is particularly challenging? Those people are often the unsung heroes of our society.

Paul Burstow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that very important point. The 6 million or more carers in this country are undoubtedly the backbone of our care system and save us a large sum of money—over £100 billion according to the most recent estimate by Carers UK. I will go beyond thanking them and make the point that the Government have committed £400 million extra to supporting the extension of respite support for carers. We are determined to make sure that that money gets through to those who need it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne’s remarks about commissioning and the need for it to be multidisciplinary, involving social care and other expertise, is undoubtedly right. Indeed, my Department is in the process of developing a pack to support health and social care commissioners, particularly in relation to dementia commissioning. It will offer guidance on key aspects of dementia care and the need for early diagnosis and intervention. My hon. Friend was right to refer to the under-diagnosis and late diagnosis of dementia and how that can reduce life chances and the opportunity to plan for the progression of the disease. There will also
	be guidance on offering better support for people at home and in care homes and on providing better care in hospitals, which means addressing issues of training that have been mentioned.

Chris White: Does the Minister agree that excellent examples of charities and social enterprises such as Castel Froma in my constituency that put social goals before short-term profit provide some of the best models for the future of care homes? Should the Government not do all that they can to encourage the provision of services by those organisations to the sector?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for that point. Part of the Government’s growth strategy is about recognising the value that micro-enterprises and social enterprises can offer in delivering good-quality social care.
	We are producing supporting guidance for commissioners on the reduction in the use of anti-psychotic medication, which is often overlooked by commissioners. Having spent a decade campaigning for an end to the inappropriate and over-prescribing of anti-psychotics, I was delighted when the previous Government finally commissioned an independent review that clearly revealed the cost of the use of those drugs—lives shortened, lives dimmed, and 1,800 deaths a year, which is truly shocking. That is why as a Minister I am determined to hold the system to account to deliver a two-thirds reduction in the prescribing of those drugs by November this year. That ambitious target was set in 2009, and it requires action by a number of agencies and the provision of the alternatives that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne discussed.
	To make that change, the Government need active support from the front line, the third sector and professional bodies, and we have worked closely with Dementia Action Alliance and many other organisations to support a national call for action to reduce the use of anti-psychotics, which will be launched later this week. My hon. Friend discussed the variation in services across the country, and it is worth saying that the NHS spends £8.2 billion a year on dementia. I do not think there is compelling evidence that it is all well used, which is why we are auditing service provision around the country to gauge progress, for example in the development of memory services. Taken with clear requirements on primary care trusts to publish their dementia plans and work with their social care partners, there will be more transparency than ever before, so commissioners will be held to account for delivery in that area.
	My hon. Friend touched on a number of issues relating to NHS reforms, and discussed the need to improve research. I have the privilege of chairing the ministerial advisory group on dementia research, and one of the key issues in delivering more investment in dementia research is securing more quality bids for research funds in the first place. I am delighted that more than 121 new bids have recently been made and are being evaluated, making it very likely that I will be in a position later this year to announce good news about our moving towards significantly increased investment in dementia research. The key is not just throwing money at the problem but making sure that the talents in scientific skills in this country are brought to bear on it, and that expertise is brought into this area to make sure that we solve the problems effectively.
	My hon. Friend made some important points about NHS reforms. Having just concluded the listening exercise, we are waiting for Steve Field and the NHS Future Forum to publish their conclusions next week. My hon. Friend discussed the role that health and wellbeing boards can play in integrating services. That is something that was part of the original legislation and which, I am pretty certain, will remain in the legislation. It is an essential building block in delivering more integration of health and social care.
	In conclusion, health and social care reform is long overdue. My hon. Friend made a powerful case for acting swiftly on that reform. The Government have acted in a determined fashion to put in place the building blocks to enable that reform to take place. We have secured the funds to sustain the system while we put those reforms in place, and we are committed to delivering on dementia. I have no doubt that if we deliver good-quality dementia care services and model our services around
	the needs of dementia sufferers and their families, care and compassion will be built into the system, which will address many of the concerns that have rightly been rehearsed in the House over recent months. It will also enable us to get the very best out of the £8.2 billion that is already spent on dementia services, and ensure that the extra resources that this Government are putting into the NHS over the next few years get to the front line and deliver the improvements that all Members want to see.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne for raising the subject this evening, and I look forward to continuing to work with him through his all-party group to make sure that we keep these issues firmly in the spotlight, driving forward the improvements that all our constituents expect.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.